Let me begin with an observation from my thirteen-year-old grandson, offered as the results from last night were coming in. “We can expect fire from heaven if this keeps up.”
First the lay of the land, and then some observations . . . and then an endorsement.
Trump was victorious in Georgia, Alabama, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Virginia, and Arkansas. He also nipped in just ahead of Kasich in Vermont. Cruz won Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska. Rubio won Minnesota. So there you go. But take note of Oklahoma, in which you had to be a registered Republican in order to vote. A number of these states divvy up the delegates on a proportional system so that, unless you are down at Carson thresholds, you can take third place and still walk away with delegates.
Up to a certain point, it made sense to try to consolidate the anti-Trump vote by asking the guys who are getting lapped to withdraw from the race. But at another point, a bit farther down the road, the politics might get a little Middle America Byzantine, to coin a phrase. Trump has only about a third of the delegates he needs to take the convention. As a result of all last night’s doings, he only gained on Cruz by about 20 delegates.
All this means the #NeverTrump forces have two options. Either they can all drop out and rally behind the one person who has had the most success thus far in beating Trump (Cruz), which is not likely to happen, or they can stay in the race with the hope that their home states will keep them alive (e.g. Kasich in Ohio and Rubio in Florida). If that actually happens, it may be that the three alternative amigos may accumulate enough delegates in their respective regions to broker the convention — a situation where Trump is in the individual lead but does not have enough delegates to secure the nomination. But this is what we should call a “high risk” strategy. That risk could be minimized if we knew beforehand that Kasich and Rubio would suspend their campaigns if they don’t take Ohio and Florida respectively. As it happens, those primaries are 13 days from now, on March 15. So go get your popcorn.
But unlike Kasich, Rubio needs to decide now. The reason for that is because he has bargaining power now. If he loses Florida, he is done, finis, kaput, swan-songed, and has no significant bargaining power at all. His campaign will have joined the choir invisible.
So now some observations. I trust that my political reflections on the campaign thus far have made it clear that I believe Trump to be a classic American hustler, out for the main chance, not a man of principle, and guaranteed to disappoint his fervent supporters. I think I know what Trump is up to. But I also think that there is a great deal of cluelessness out there when it comes to analyzing what Trump supporters are up to. Members of our ruling elite, as well as those Christians who think that cultural engagement means currying favor with those ruling elites, are trying to analyze this movement by clutching their pearls and throwing all their dresses over their heads.
As I have already made my #NeverTrump bona fides plain enough, I would also like to register my disdain for the white-bread-sjw evangelical establishment, always tagging along behind the real establishment, always being outraged by what they are told to be outraged by. But the establishment is the one currently surrounded by peasants and their pitchforks. Hence the problem. A friend of mine called their objection to Trump boiling down to him being “unchurchladylike.”
As a starting point for understanding all of this, I would recommend The Ruling Class by Codevilla. After that, to apply such insights to this election cycle, I would recommend the following two articles, found here and here.
What we are seeing is a rejection of the old establishment left/right divisions in favor of a new outsider/establishment division. This new division has real teeth this time. Up to this point, it has been the basis for rhetorical excesses — virtually everyone runs against the Washington “insiders.” That is one of the earliest tricks that the insiders mastered. But then one day the real outsiders got mad . . .
So we are seeing in process two very real revolts against the ruling class, one larger and one smaller, one inchoate and the other organized, one emotional and the other principled, one populist and the other constitutionalist. But I think both of them are motivated by a profound contempt for the ruling classes.
The population that is in revolt knows that the ruling class holds them to be rubes and cornpones, the great unwashed, poorly-educated, and so on. I am just going to go ahead and call them the hoi polloi, even though hoi is the article in Greek and technically I should not have added the English article the. But as an Idaho-dwelling member of the hoi polloi, I drive a pick-up truck, and am not supposed to know things like that. The bottom line is that the people running the country, through politics, entertainment, the media, and so on, think that you there in the Middle America — are stupid. And this is the revolt against all that.
Now someone might say that if you are revolting against the idea that smart people think you are stupid, then selecting Trump as your leader scarcely makes your point. But Trump is not the counterpoint in an argument in a paneled seminar room. Trump is a wrecking ball. It doesn’t really matter, the thinking goes, at the end of the day, if all the people you just defenestrated still think you are stupid. Let them think that, just so long as they fit through the window.
Another way of saying this is that Middle America has a marked case of father hunger.
And so, we come to an endorsement. Up to this point I think that my sympathies for Ted Cruz have been evident enough. Out of all the men running, his positions have been closest to mine. He is a Christian by genuine conviction. In the new division that is developing, he is an outsider least likely to disappoint if elected.
And for the first time in a long time, the primaries will still matter by the time the campaign gets to Idaho. We are voting next week, on March 8.
Before saying what I am going to say, I do need to make it clear I am offering this endorsement as a citizen and individual, and not a minister. I am doing this at Blog and Mablog, a web site that is maintained and financed with our own personal funds. I am not speaking for Christ Church, or for any of the other ministries I am associated with. This is just me . . . me and my little old wisdom.
That said, I do endorse Ted Cruz for president, and would encourage everyone who respects that opinion to make sure to vote for him. Crawl over broken glass if you need to.
I get it. I like Ted too. But what I need now is a shot glass sized argument for him that establishment abolitionists can’t resist. It has to be strong, fast acting, and habituating. Set em up, Joe.
Proper Supreme Court appointments and he can play golf for 4 years.
Cruz for me too, even though I like Trump giving it to all mentioned establishment types above.
Until God provides us a better option, we better support the closest to a Constitutional Christian point of view. Currently that is Cruz.
I did vote for Cruz in Georgia this week
I wish you were honest with yourself about his dishonest tactics.
I wish Ted Cruz hadn’t apologized for something he was not responsible for. Marco Rubio supporters were saying the same thing as Cruz supporters because Carson didn’t campaign in Iowa. I live in Iowa. We saw Rubio. We saw Cruz. We saw Christie. We saw Santorum. Trump came to the Iowa State Fair and was giving free helicopter rides to children. The list goes on. But we didn’t see Kasich and we didn’t see Carson. Because he was signing books at Barnes and Noble in states that wouldn’t be voting for months. And going into the Iowa caucus, he said… Read more »
What rock do you live under in Iowa? I saw Carson plenty. Well, correction, I saw him once before he decided to run; but I had plenty of opportunities in my town to see him on the campaign trail.
His Iowa staffers drove an empty bus around Iowa, giving the impression that he was campaigning. Meanwhile he was in states that wouldn’t hold primaries for weeks and months signing books. Even now he skipped the debate but hasn’t suspended his campaign. Why?
I hesitate to answer that question. I have too much respect for him.
I wish anyone talking about his dishonest tactics was honest about them.
A few fringe fan-made sites, capitalizing on a CNN report, and the disavowed dirty trick of a comms manager do not a dishonest campaign make.
But I’m sure it’s all part of a greater narrative, just like all those police who hate minorities…
Fringe? Steve Deace is a nationally syndicated talk show host who appears on all of the major networks. And I’ll ask you to compare my facts with whatever facts you have to bring to the discussion. Otherwise your response is nothing more than ad hominem.
I think Kevin was agreeing with you, Doug.
In that case, I apologize, Kevin. I was in the wrong for not properly understanding what you had to say before responding.
No problem – just make sure to double-check the arrow by the commenter’s name to see who the reply is aimed at :)
@grandson: someone has taught him well!
The thing you miss is that Rubio has the better chance to beat Clinton in November. If the goal is to win the actual election that matters, Cruz et al should pull out and support Rubio because he can and will likely beat Clinton. Cruz will most likely lose to Clinton (his head to head numbers are in the margin of error). Cruz is not electable in a general election. His principles are questionable and his personality is horrible. So if the goal is to get the best possible person in the White House, Cruz and the other should drop… Read more »
Rubio is the king of moral victories. His campaign theme song should be “What might have been.” If all the candidates who actually win would drop out, Rubio would still probably come in second place.
The same party that gave us Dole, McCain, and Romney all assure us that Rubio is the way ahead. No thanks.
I think you may be misremembering a thing or two. Rubio is no Dole, McCain, or Romney.
But am I understanding you correctly that you would rather Clinton win over Cruz than Rubio win over Clinton?
If you really want an ambiguously-gay pro-amnesty president, we could just keep Obama on for a third term.
Ace and Gary are not options?
I like the way you think, friend of friends.
I don’t know who you are talking about, but I don’t want a third term of Obama. I didn’t want a first term.
I really have to ask: who’s paying you to say this?
A 44-year-old senator with no executive experience, four kids, a shady past, and no accumulated wealth doesn’t just decide to run for president because he wakes up one morning feeling ambitious. He’s the vessel for someone else’s plan.
I wish someone was paying me. But I honestly have no real rooting interest. Cruz best represents my values and my view of the constitution. All things being equal, I would prefer to see him as president. However, he comes across as an arrogant and a smarmy man. He is very intelligent, but doesn’t communicate well. I have no idea about his character, but I am less interested in that for national politics than I am about his policies, provided that his character is not greatly soiled. It doesn’t seem to be, and neither does Rubio’s. Trump’s is, and his… Read more »
I think either one would be about the same, but the Republican machine pretty clearly never intends to give Rubio the nomination.
If by “Republican machine” you mean the party establishment, I think they lean towards Rubio, but I don’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised if they would rather have Trump over Cruz.
We’ll see what Romney has to say tomorrow.
I agree that Cruz has likability issues. He doesn’t have the charm or charisma of Rubio, but he will not be going up against a likable candidate in the general. He will be going up against Hillary Clinton, who is mistrusted by the majority of her party, completely charmless, with 0 charisma. She is nothing like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Cruz has a better chance of appealing to Trumps voters, has support of the base, is hated by the Establishment (a plus), and has principles that do not falter once elected. We have tried elect-ability in the past, and… Read more »
I think we should absolutely make it clear where we stand, but we don’t have to be jerks about it, and we don’t have to start every sentence with “Look” as if it is time for a lecture. Cruz needs to learn to talk to people. A third party may happen, but it won’t help because it won’t take many if any Dems. You will still have a 50% party and the other 50% will be split in two. Until we have a parlimentarian government that won’t work. As to Rubio doing poorly in the primaries, I am not sure.… Read more »
“Hillary Clinton, who is mistrusted by the majority of her party, completely charmless, with 0 charisma. She is nothing like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.”
Repeat after me:
First
Womyn
President
If that actually happens, it may be that the three alternative amigos may accumulate enough delegates in their respective regions to broker the convention — a situation where Trump is in the individual lead but does not have enough delegates to secure the nomination. But this is what we should call a “high risk” strategy. That risk could be minimized if we knew beforehand that Kasich and Rubio would suspend their campaigns if they don’t take Ohio and Florida respectively. As it happens, those primaries are 13 days from now, on March 15. So go get your popcorn. Hate to… Read more »
Between a rock and a hair piece.
It ain’t a hairpiece; it’s an industrial grade comb-over. But, if it were a hairpiece, and someone with his money were buying that bad a hairpiece, that would say something about him, wouldn’t it?
What do you mean when referring to Rubio’s bargaining power? What would he be bargaining for? Are you referring to him throwing in the towel in exchange for something like a cabinet position or VP nod?
I know who’s in a stupor, and it’s not the voters who came out for Trump yesterday. It’s the guy who actually wrote this: And so, we come to an endorsement. Up to this point I think that my sympathies for Ted Cruz have been evident enough. Out of all the men running, his positions have been closest to mine. He is a Christian by genuine conviction. In the new division that is developing, he is an outsider least likely to disappoint if elected. Let’s see. Ted Cruz: Graduated from Princeton Graduated from Harvard Law Was a clerk for the… Read more »
And, with *all* that legal knowledge and experience, he *still* pretends not to understand that as his US citizenship was given him via Acts of Congress he is therefore a naturalized US citizen, and therefore cannot be president.
You’re still beating that horse, eh?
So, you’re still jamming your little fingers in your ears and saying, “Nya, nya, I can’t hear you”?
I just thought I’d check in and see how you were doin’, and if you needed anything.
Hi, J. Frank. I realize that most people here would have recognized the source of your nom de plume, but I didn’t until yesterday. What an amazing character he was. Pastoring mega-churches. Leading witch hunts against evolutionists. Shooting an unarmed man in his office and getting tried (and acquitted) for murder. Preaching sermons that made women faint. Getting into such quarrels with his fellow Baptist clergy that one of them wrote: “And what to do with Norris, was a question broad and deep. He was too big to banish, and he smelled too bad to keep.” But then I was… Read more »
Cue Estes Kefauver’s return.
I’m not a fan of JFN. Just stumbled across his name and thought it would be a good alias. I’d never heard of him before, and I doubt if one person out of fifty on here recognized the name without looking it up. So I’m well aware he was a big time Jew-lover, and I use his name anyway. He blamed Britain, the U.S. and the Arab states for complicity in not averting the Holocaust. Frankly, I doubt that very much. He may have blamed them for a bunch of Jews dying in concentration camps, but it’s very unlikely he… Read more »
According to one of his biographers David Stokes: “Norris also referred to the Holocaust in his letter {i.e. the letter to President Truman regarding U.S. support for the new Israeli state], accusing the Arabs of being complicit in the atrocities as allies of the Nazi regime ‘with their hands dripping with the blood of the Jews – six million of them murdered.'” Why, in view of the Nuremburg Trials in the late 1940s and the Eichmann Trial in 1962, would you assume that people were not generally aware of the Final Solution? As a young child in the early 1960s,… Read more »
Yeah, I’m not saying that the term “Holocaust” wasn’t around yet, or the six million figure wasn’t being bandied about(actually, Jews had been claiming for decades that Germany was on the verge of killing “six million Jews”, like all the way to 1899 or something). I’m just surprised to learn that Norris was using them. Just curious, though, jilly. Which do you think had more influence on getting Truman to recognize Israel – Norris’s plea, or the Jews’ repeated attempts to assassinate Truman because he didn’t appear to be on board with recognizing Israel? I’m guessing the latter played a… Read more »
The only attempt I saw in a quick google search was the bomb sent to the WH mailroom, allegedly by the Stern gang. The problem with information one gets on the net is trying to distinguish between conspiracy theories and genuine history. Nonethless, I would say that neither the letter nor the alleged assassination attempts played much role. You might as well say that he recognized Israel because he needed Jewish votes to carry New York. I think that presidents even then lived with constant threats from all kinds of disgruntled individuals and groups. I don’t think such threats generally… Read more »
You are assuming that every Jew is a Zionist which is simply not true. You are assuming that every Zionist was or is murderous, which is absolutely not true.
I did no such thing.
Actually, according to Truman’s daughter and other people who were in a position to know, it wasn’t “a” bomb. Jews repeatedly sent letter bombs to the White House in an attempt to assassinate Truman.
And the Stern Gang?
Wasn’t Yitzak Shamir one of its leaders?
Didn’t he go on to become the Prime Minister of Israel?
I’m glad I was mistaken about your assumptions. I think the statement that Jews, as opposed to radical Zionists, tried to murder the president could possibly be interpreted as a reflection on an entire group of people. Sometimes people who use the term Jews in this way are intending to suggest that the Knesset keeps every American Jew on speed-dial ready to hand out the day’s orders. But I am happy to be wrong. I don’t know much about the founding of Israel. I do know there was some violence, and I am hardly in a position to know whether… Read more »
The elites think we’re stupid and they’re right! The elites are stupider but that’s irrelevant. Hope Cruz wins!
The attractiveness of Trump’s policies at this point is completely overshadowed by how much he is making “conservatives” suffer.
Father hunger? It’s simpler than that. As Corneliu Codreanu put it: “If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.”
Question for the anti-Trump crowd: If he gives the name of his intended supreme court nominee, and it is a strict constitutionalist (let’s say Ted Cruz), would that be enough to get your vote?
Up here in Alaska, Cruz ‘won’ by one deligate. Effectivly tieing with Trump.
It was interesting that our local caucus was opened in prayer (it was, after all, a Republican caucus) in which the pastor asked God not to give us the President our country deserves, but rather a President better than we deserve. It appears that we have a number of candidates who fit the bill on either side of that equation. I would lump Clinton, Sanders, and Trump in as Presidents who could be well described as “what our nation deserves.” On the other side are several who are probably better than we deserve. I would put Cruz, Carson, and Rubio… Read more »
The devil would have us believe we can discharge most of our duties as citizens by simply checking one box every four years.
Codevilla’s ‘America’s Ruling Class’ can also be read here: http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution
Well, not precisely.
That’s the article upon which the book (recommended by DW) is based.
I beg your pardon. I have not read the book, so I didn’t know. Perhaps the article would give people a pretty good idea of the book’s content?
1. No worries!
2. Nor had I.
3. I assume so. That’s why I’ve printed it to read. (19 pp., small font … ) :-0
I bought the book when it first came out, Codevilla capitalizing on the popularity of the article.
IMHO, the book is just a padded version fo the essay. There is no value-add to buying the book.
America is such a thoroughly divided country. Reds, Blues. Left, Right, and today I read in the NY Times that a species known as black voters showed great support for Clinton by giving her their black votes.
How disgusting. What other nation on earth today speaks of it’s constituents that way? Black votes? Seriously.
To the anti Trump sect I am curious to know what you think his motives are for running.
“motives”
Ego. The last, biggest, BRASSIEST brass ring.
What’s your source for that being his motive?
No “source” whatsoever.
You said you were curious to know what we “think” his motives are for running. That’s what I think.
Thanks Frank. Perhaps my question should have been why are people impuning these kinds of motives.
I understand why career politicians would put themselves in the race; they have nothing else to do. But Trump doesn’t need any of this to be successful. He is already successful and so it seems to me that, taken at face value, the only reason for running is that he really loves his country.
Or “power”. He already has enough money. Could it be that he is using his money and influence to buy the biggest power trip of his dreams? I mean, put that man as commander in chiief of his own army and look out!
If power were his game I would have thought he would have given much more time in his speeches pandering to the right people. Making promises that are politically correct to make. Rulers get their power in one of two ways. By seduction or threat. Trump does not seem to be doing either of these things. He seems to me to be more like Jeroboam than Rehaboam. I can still remember a few years back a young lady been asked why she was voting for Obama. Her answer was that he was going to give her a free mobile phone.… Read more »
He’s just pandering to a different group of people than the ones you’re focusing on. He’s pandering to those against immigration, to those sick of political correctness (by obliterating the distinction between political correctness and decent public discourse), to the discontented and disaffected. Even to the extent those are legitimate concerns, that doesn’t make him not pandering and not interested in power.
Yeah, I hear ya. But given that he has been the only candidate talking about those things from the start it just doesn’t strike me as pandering. It was a potentially suicidal platform to take. Either he’s an incredible genius to work out that the people would respond positively to his message or he genuine believes in his message and that’s why he is preaching it.
I simply don’t see how it was a potentially suicidal platform to take. Tapping into the anger against the establishment was hardly strategically brilliant and hardly risky. (It wasn’t dumb, but I don’t see any unusual brilliance.) And I don’t think it takes that much genius, given the existence of the Tea Party and similar movements of disaffection. The widespread disaffection was well known to any alert observer. He might genuinely believe in it but there’s no way to know, because there’s no way to know what he genuinely believes about anything, except the ego and the desire for power.… Read more »
I don’t think you can argue he is not motivated by power just because he doesn’t fir your definition. What other motivation could he have? He’s loved sitting in the background being courted for donations by candidates of both parties. He got off on rubbing Romney’s face in it the other day. Now he wants to try his hand at it. He’s appealing to the dissatisfaction of the average voter who is fed up with cronyism but who is too stupid to realize that “hope and change” that is undefined is dangerous, as we’ve learned under Obama. Trump is just… Read more »
Scott, the only problem I have with that argument is that he had no way of knowing how successful he would be in his appeal to the dissatisfied masses until he began. And since the beginning he has not changed his strategy. If he had wanted to be certain of success all he had to say was some nice things about gays, feminism and healthcare. Given the PC and SJW climate in your country, he stood to lose popularity and power rather than gain it – which is what all the pundits predicted would happen but hasn’t. You have to… Read more »
Trump doesn’t have anything else do either, and he’d hardly be the first rich man to dive into politics. Given his showman past, the way he’s done everything we know he’s ever done, and everything about the way he’s campaigning, I really can’t see where there is any question of it being driven by an insatiable craving for notoriety and power – my guess is, in that order.
America is not a nation; it is a multinational empire.
Soon to be the Trump empire?
Huh? That doesn’t really answer my question.
America is divided because it was never really unified. People of different cultures formed a compromise government (the USA) but were never a single nation with a single background or shared values.
Most likely, stroking his own ego combined with the erroneous idea that the country would be well off with him leading it.
America will be worse off than with Obama?
That is of course a completely irrelevant question because Obama is not running, and because I said he was wrong that it would be well off, I did not say “worse off” compared to anything else.
But to answer Ben’s question – Yes.
I’m confused about your point on father hunger. Is the ruling class supposed to be the abusive father who we want to throw out, or is Trump supposed to be the father who swoops in and saves his beloved children?
Father Hunger is the need in people who do not have fathers or have poor ones. It is a (wrong) response of these types of people to fill a void left by lack of fatherhood.
But how does peacefully overthrowing an abusive ruling class have anything to do with a void left by a lack of fatherhood? Is it because they hate their fathers and are projecting their fathers’ villainy on the ruling class?
I think “father hunger” can show up as looking for someone you perceive as a larger than life figure to metaphorically slay your enemies, fix your problems, and give you a sense of security. Do you remember that when the Fort Hood shootings happened, Obama was criticized for being chilly and unaffectionate in his consolation of the victims’ families? His style was compared with Reagan’s when he met with the Challenger families. It struck me then that we should not need the president to lead our grief and bind up our collective wounds. I think that is giving him a… Read more »
It’s not overthrowing the abusive ruling class that’s the issue, it’s looking for a Daddy who will do it for you.
How come we couldn’t overthrow the abusive ruling class until an abusive member of the ruling class came along and promised he’d do it? Presumably, because those who desired that believed they needed Daddy to do it for them.
I was explaining what I believe Doug means by Father Hunger, not so much defending his application. I suspect he would note how they are doing it. They look to Trump which is a clue. People with Father Hunger fill the hunger inappropriately unless God heals them
Just seat-of-the-pants psychology as far as I can tell. The Trump supporters I know all have pretty good relationships with their dads.
The Codevilla book is an extended/padded version of his seminal 2010 essay which you can read for free here:
http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution
What we are seeing is a rejection of the old establishment left/right
divisions in favor of a new outsider/establishment division.
I find John Derbyshire’s thinks the divide is Globalist-Multiculturalists vs American Nationalists.
A restatement of the same thing is Neocons vs Paleocons.
I think he is correct. The phenomena is not just in America, events in Europe show the same dynamic.
I am not sure why voting for Cruz is such a good idea considering he ( and Doug) lean towards dominion theology/heocracy, and history has shown it has never worked….
Where didn’t it work?
OT Israel, Calvins Geneva, Purittan New England, in some respects todays Uganda…….every one of those who tried eventually crumbled and became no better than a pagan nation.
Interesting. Is there anything that you’d say has worked, then?
None have been perfect. but democracy in any form has a better track record than any other form of government. Certainly better then theocracy in any form, monarchies, etc.
I can only attribute this view to ignorance. There are European monarchies that were stable for a thousand years — there are few democracies that have lasted 200 years without major internal violence. (The USA under the Constitution didn’t even last 100.)
Monarchies not only for the most part are ceremonial today, they rarely gave rights to the average citizen as democracies in any form does. Though democracies had their basic start in ancient Greece, they only became more common in the 1800’s I believe.
As far as I know, democracy in the US is still going, is it not?
The R’s are doing their damnedest to make sure it isn’t, no?
And in fairness, ashv’s comment on monarchies is not dependent upon their continuing on now. Monarchies apparently have a longer shelf life.
They are mostly ceremonial now-no real power. And that doesn’t even mention the fact that in a true monarchy the average person has no real power.
The more of a democracy the U.S. has been, the more it’s gone downhill from its beginnings as a Constitutional Republic. As for theocracy, while I’m not a theonomist, your examples do nothing to prove your point. OT Israel failed for other reasons, and your other examples are so short-term and different that they aren’t even worth comparing.
Stil, the average citizen, whether it’s through the ballot, protest, etc., has power to change things.
“Stil, the average citizen, whether it’s through the ballot, protest, etc., has power to change things.”
Voting and protesting are largly ineffective in my experiance.
Ask those who fought for civil rights with LK if protests helped. Sure there is still systemic racism in the US, but it`s much better than segrigation.
Ask women who got the right to vote if protesting was ineffectie.
And for oting, sure, if you are on the loosing side and don`t exactly what you want, then yeah, voting is ineffective. But for the majority, it gives the average citzen a voice that they don`t have in other parts of the world.
it should be MLK not LK
Protests are an appeal to power. If there were no people with power sympathetic to the appeal, nothing would have happened.
Yes, they are, and they have been effective in directing change in US history.
That’s 2 successes for protesting, out of how many?
Voting only gives you a voice if you agree with the majority and those in power listen to the majority.
And thats worse than a king or a dictator rling with an iron fist? Is it worse than a theocracy (muslim or Christian) that foces obedience and justifies it by their scripture? And yes, many times in history protests, voting, grass root movements have made signifigant changes in society.
“And thats worse than a king or a dictator rling with an iron fist?”
Not nessessarily. It would depend on the king or dictator.
“Is it worse than a theocracy (muslim or Christian) that foces obedience and justifies it by their scripture?”
The only theocracy I’m interested in is the one implemented by Jesus.
“And yes, many times in history protests, voting, grass root movements have made signifigant changes in society.”
Unfortunately we are in the present. The only newsworthy protests lately have been symptomatic of the fracturing of scociety.
“Not nessessarily. It would depend on the king or dictator.” -look at OT history and we seee for ever king that started off god, most failed majorly, leading the nation astray-and thats not even mentioning the scores of kings who from the start did wicked in the eyes of the Lord. “The only theocracy I’m interested in is the one implemented by Jesus.” -I do agree with that. The difference would be that Jesus is perfect while what Doug is advocating would have an imperfect leader who has a sin nature. “Unfortunately we are in the present. The only newsworthy… Read more »
“-look at OT history and we seee for ever king that started off god, most failed majorly, leading the nation astray-and thats not even mentioning the scores of kings who from the start did wicked in the eyes of the Lord.” America is not in a better position. “-no doubt, protests do bring groups such as anarchists, but that doesn`t nessesaraly prove protests are pointless or not valid.” If you could get enough people to protest for something instead of just mass grumbling about the present state of things there might be a point. But until then all these protesters… Read more »
“America is not in a better position.” -Is that because of democracy? The church has a big part to play in the state of the US, money in politics does, selfish political parties who are uninterested in compromising for the common good, they all have a part to play. “If you could get enough people to protest for something instead of just mass grumbling about the present state of things there might be a point. But until then all these protesters are wasting their time.” -You may think it`s grumbling. Many would disagree. You may not want to admit the… Read more »
“-Is that because of democracy? The church has a big part to play in the state of the US, money in politics does, selfish political parties who are uninterested in compromising for the common good, they all have a part to play.” Not because of democracy, but the other factors come into play with monarchys as well. “-You may think it`s grumbling. Many would disagree. You may not want to admit the power of an average citizen being engaged with the government, whether through protest, reaching out to a local representative, etc., but it is powerful.” It certainly makes people… Read more »
“Not because of democracy, but the other factors come into play with monarchys as well.”
-any other form of governance has inherited problems that will eventually manifest. Democracy does not.
“It certainly makes people feel powerful, most citizens are not organized enough to actually be powerful.”
-they still have a voice, there still can be change.
“-any other form of governance has inherited problems that will eventually manifest. Democracy does not.”
What?! You think that all of the current government problems just recently occured? That previous gemerations problems don’t effect us ‘because democracy’?
Depends on what problems you are talking about. Many of the problems we have seen in the US (that are in the control of the government) can be atributed to money in politics, the military industrial complex, unchecked burrocracy, etc. Those things may give undue muscle, the average citizen can change things. On the other hand, a monarchy is dependant on the ruler and liniage of succession. A theocracy is dependant on the “Biblical law” being used to govern and the hope that the leaders are honerable instead of evil. In those types of governane, the only thing a citizen… Read more »
I think our fundamental disagreement here is that you have more faith than I do in the people of America to act as a corrective influence.
Probably. And a part of that may be an issue of a lack of compromise, many of the extreems not being able to agree on reality, and far too many in the Church getting into fear monguring.
And, the examples I gave actually do prove a point. Israel became just as barbaric while governing from the OT as their pagan neighbours. Geneva was just as oppressive, using the Word to justify their action.
The founders were just wrong in their belief that a “constitutional republic” could avoid the ills of democracy. As the Federalist Papers document, they believed they were building a system that would prevent political parties, which it manifestly didn’t. The “American experiment” was a failure.
The democracies of ancient Greece and of the modern era have very little in common — the former would look like aristocratic oligarchies today. (And they still weren’t any more stable than their neighbours that eschewed democracy.)
“Rights” is not the only basis on which to judge a government, and arguably a very poor one.
I would actually say that rights are central. The rights that allow you to rip the government, or Doug to hedge the truth to promote the idea of dominion theology are not afforded in any other political system that is not a democracy.
Yes, this is the liberal belief. I don’t share it.
No, it`s the cornerstone of democracy….
Yes. Democracy is the cornerstone of liberalism.
freedom and rights are neither liberal or conservative. what are you, some kind of commie?
“Rights” is a rather loose term. “Civil rights” as in legal protections provided by a government has a long and venerable history. The idea of “universal rights” or “human rights” is specifically a liberal idea that Christians should oppose. (And, by the way, “conservatism” is a form of liberalism, as of course is communism.)
Human rights and civil rights are similar.
And I got to ask, what political system are you espousing?
OK. by “civil rights” I merely mean “legal privileges”, not some philosophical concept of rights.
I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all political system. But liberal democracy is both blasphemous and murderous and should be opposed by all Christians.
And you would say that the current US system is blasphemous, correct?
Considering its end products, I don’t see how anyone can disagree at this point.
what are some of the end products?
Abortion, “Caitlyn” Jenner on TV, Ferguson and Baltimore riots, sodomite marriage.
Did those tings happen because of democracy, or because of the curches failure? That`s like kicking the dog when you backed the car into the house….
Do those two things really have to be different?
whether they have to be different is irrelevant……they are different. Democracy did not lead to anything you mentioned above. the churches failure, however, though not solely at fault, is a major culprit.
Whether they have to be different or not is irrelevant-they are different. Democracy did not bring the things you mentioned above. Deocracy does not shape culture. The churches failures, though not the sole culprit, is a major factor.
“Democracy does not shape culture”? That’s a pretty strong claim, want to provide an argument or some evidence for it?
I have to agree with ashv’s sentiments elsewhere expressed and ask where in Scripture are “rights” given in the positive? Now, the rights of spouses to the other’s body conjugally, yes, Paul does give, but other “rights” are only indirectly discerned through the commanding of duty to other.
I’m commanded to love my neighbor–but that’s not saying that my neighbor has a “right” to my love.
You are confusing the application of a religious belief with a lawful and civil society. In 1 Corinthians Paul tells that church not to judge the outside world. Let`s be frank here, you, ashv, myself and everyone else that comments on message boards and blogs is exercising their right to free speech. Each sunday you go to church you are practicing your right to religion. To have that freedom means someone can disagree with you, someone can choose another religion or none at all, etc. So what`s better- having rights some will misuse and we might not agree with, or… Read more »
1) I don’t understand your application of that passage or how it relates to the conversation at hand. 2) I don’t have a “right” to freedom of religion; I have a duty, indeed have been commanded, to worship the LORD and have no other God before Him, indeed, the Good News is the Jesus is King, whether or not you have the “right” to worship Him “freely.” I don’t have a “right” to demand kindness from my neighbor; I have a duty to show kindness to my neighbor. I don’t have a “right” to bear arms; I have a duty… Read more »
1) The idea of a theocracy is that a nation is ruled by God`s law. If in scripture, Paul tells the Corinthians that what he isaying about not judgeing those outside the faith for not living by the faith, then ho can we, by the rule of law, force those outside the faith to live as believers. 2) In Democracies, you have a right to free expression of religion, whatever that religion is. You are right in that as believers, we have a duty to do those things, but those outside the faith do not have that duty, and we… Read more »
George Carlin had a few relevent things to say about that.
Appeal to the jester…..
Carlin was observant. His conclusions were wrong, but he did manage a few valid insights. Not that you should take him too seriously.
No doubt Carlin was observant, but his main job is to make people laugh, not give political insight…..
True, but his observations were occasionaly accurate.
Which monarchies do you have in mind and what do you mean by stable?
To pick a few examples: the Habsburg princes of Austria ruled from 1278 to 1918; 50 monarchs with only 6 notable failures, and no major social unrest or oppression except for about 7 years in the 1400s and the revolution of 1848. The Capetian dynasty ruled France from 941 to 1836 with about 35 years of social upheaval during the Reformation, and of course the French Revolution. Other dynasties have similar records of stable succession and good governance.
Then if I’m understanding you, by stable you mean governance, actual or titular, over some portion of Europe, (but not always the same portion(s)), by members of a given powerful family, over a long period of time. Why do you see a particular value in that?
Specifically I mean that European monarchies on the whole produced high-quality government, and democracy has a much worse track record. The “American experiment” couldn’t make it even 100 years without killing 2% of its population.
Mmm. If avoiding bloodletting is the measure of good government I don’t think the European monarchies did any better than any of the other governments in history.
Can you give an example of why you think that?
On the whole they were as warlike as any and at times a good deal more than most. The territories over which they ruled were not stable but were constantly being contested and changing borders. The ugliness of a Republican “debate”, disgusting as it is, is only a matter of words. Even under monarchies inheritance and hereditary claims did not satisfy everyone, and a rather sanguinary approach to settling any disagreement over who gets to lead where was pretty much the norm.
That’s certainly the impression we’re given, chiefly because of England’s history — but English history had a good bit more turmoil than other places. And let’s be honest, plenty of democracies have a sanguinary approach to settling disagreement over who gets to lead — consider the history of South American countries.
http://www.moreright.net/monarchy-faq/ contains some good historical analysis on this topic.
I was thinking of England yes, but also France, caught up in a good bit of that English turmoil for one example. I was thinking of those historical maps of Europe, what with their changing borders of kingdoms, duchies, etc., attended by all that hacking and stabbing, which makes entertaining reading for us, but couldn’t have been a good time for all while it was happening. That is a good link you provided. But now take from that link “Was the Kingdom of Austria more or less stable than the United States? If you’ve studied the history of Austria, you… Read more »
Sure. But wars that impacted the lives of the majority of the population were the exception rather than the rule. The reverse has been the case since the rise of democracy.
I don’t think it was all that clean for civilian populations in the way of medieval armies either.
Since I’m questioning ashv, to be fair I’ll ask – A better track record at what?
At giving people rights and freedoms.
I’ve continued to be a bit perplexed at why you support Cruz-the-liar over Rubio-the-unimpressive. But your delegate math is weak. The fact that Cruz has won a few states, when most of his best states are already behind him, doesn’t mean very much. 538 breaks down what path each candidate actually has to win the nomination. To this point, Cruz has managed to hit about 60% of the delegate targets he’s needed to this point and Rubio has managed about 50%, which means that they’re both WAY behind. Trump, meanwhile, is at 113%, which puts him in a very, very… Read more »
Hey Jonathan, being an Australian and a bit ignorant, could you explain something to me? If the goal is for the Republicans to get into the white house and Trump is getting the most votes why would the Republicans lower their chances by ousting Trump and putting in a guy who is less popular?
There’s lots of different answers to your question, depending on who you are who is trying to “oust” Trump. 1) First off, Trump is NOT more popular than the other candidates. Trump’s net favorability is by far the lowest of any of the candidates. What he has is a core group of very strong support – which is enough to win primaries when you only need 30-40% of the Republican primary voters to like you and the other candidates are splitting their support, but isn’t nearly enough when you’re in a general election against just one other candidate. 2) Now,… Read more »
Thanks Jonathan.
np. The fact that we’re one of the few countries who “directly” elect our most important politician makes our system a bit difficult for outsiders to grasp immediately.
#feelthebern
Trump is a live hand grenade being shoved up the rectum of the political system. Pure in-your-face, middle finger to “the man”, screw you George the Third, etc. That is his allure. It is very beautiful and it is very American.
I wouldn’t say it’s beautiful but other than that an excellent summery.
I think the father hunger comment is right on the money. Milo Yiannopoulos has been publicly referring to Trump as “Daddy” for a year now. Fatherhood goes beyond biological concerns. America refers to its early political leaders as founding fathers. Whatever wild motives people may attribute to Trump, taken at face value, his consistent platform has been one of America’s, welfare, protection and prosperity. His manner is firm, blunt and given what he stands to lose, somewhat courageous when compared to the squirming of his political adversaries. His hedonism is barely worth mentioning for in that regard he is no… Read more »
“his consistent platform has been”
Uhh, “consistent” starting when, exactly?
16th June, 2015 is the date I have.
For some perhaps. But the majority of Trump’s supporters aren’t flamboyant catamites.
I wouldn’t know about that. They may not be catamites, but I suspect they are Father Hungry.
That’s Jewish psychobabble. You’re a Christian, so why do you employ Jewish psychobabble?
I am using the language of the person who posted the comment purely for consistency.
“I think I would prefer an enemy who told me the truth rather than a pretend friend who told lies.” You know, it occurred to me as I read your post here, Mr. Trounce, that I have similar feelings about, of all people, Mr. Putin as I do for Mr. Trump. Like him or not, Putin can at least be trusted fully to behave in what he thinks are the Russian people’s best interests, in stark contrast to our own Masters of the Universe. If Trump is telling any degree of truth about his intention when/if he is elected, then… Read more »
When you referred to “the white-bread-sjw evangelical establishment, always tagging along behind the real establishment, always being outraged by what they are told to be outraged by.”, you gave what is probably the most accurate description of the current leadership culture within my own Southern Baptist culture (Russell Moore as exhibit “A”) as I have ever read.
May your tribe increase.
Donald Trump: “It was a great mistake to bomb the Serbs”
http://newswatchreport.com/item/228551_donald-trump-it-was-a-great-mistake-to-bomb-the-serbs-who-were-our-allies-in-both-world-wars
Trump is already a better friend to Christians than the Bushes ever were.
Probably a good many of us have seen this article by Joel McDurmon over at American Vision: http://americanvision.org/13099/the-evangelical-pulpit-deserves-much-blame-for-this/ Now, I don’t have to like or support a Donald Trump at all to be fed up and distrustful of the Christians, pastors and laity alike, who will throw their unquestioning support behind a Bush (or whoever) who TALKS respectably, but whose policies have demonstrably made things worse in the world, and, in particular, for the church that has inhabited some of these regions since the time of the Apostles. But, hey, Trump’s vulgar! He’s a conman! Etc.! Vulgar? You betcha! A… Read more »
Jolly good read. Thanks for the link.
Bush isn’t running anymore.
But I’m not sure what Clinton’s bombing of the Serbs has to do with Bush.
It would be a commonplace to observe that Clinton was no friend to Christians. But consider the Middle Eastern Christian opinion of Bush.
To those who think we should go back in there in order to help them out, I have to honestly ask, how much more “help” can these people endure from us?
Okay, don’t disagree, but I still don’t understand why you referenced the bombing of the Serbs to make a point about Bush.
there is no doubt that the enemies of Trump (and, to a lesser extent Cruz) are some of the most abhorrent, vile, dishonest, lovers of death on earth – Bill Kristol, Krauthammer, Max Boot, et al.
If all this ‘rebellion’ serves to purge that group out of the Republican party and back to the Democratic party from whence they came, then there will be a modicum of success from this election cycle.
Hi. Albrevin. Based on your adjectives, I thought that Kristol and Krauthammer must be secret abortionists or at least kitten-torturers. But a quick Google search didn’t tell me anything except that they are neo-cons who supported the war in Iraq. This didn’t enlighten me because, after all, so did George Bush. And so did many of us, based on the information available to us at the time. Could you explain what is vile and detestable about them?
Peggy Noonan’s recent “Trump and the Rise of the Unprotected” is a very insightful article. I daresay it’s more helpful than ones DW mentioned.
Wow. Great article from Noonan on the reasons for Trump Fever. Very thoughtful. Well worth the read. Here is the link. http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550#
Noonan’s article does explain some of the public frustration, but I didn’t find that it addresses the root issue, or that it prescribed anything helpful. Noonan’s observation seems to reduce to class struggle. Protected vs unprotected is just another name for rich vs poor. This is the very same class struggle that Obama whipped up in his campaign and administration. It plays very well with a frustrated public, even when your new “hope and change” candidate is a multi-billionaire. Noonan writes: This is a terrible feature of our age—that we are governed by protected people who don’t seem to care… Read more »
John Robb provides a way to look at this that is similar to Noonan’s and Codevilla’s.
Unlike Noonan and Codevilla he recognizes that the two sides are in fact enemies and that the phenomena is worldwide.
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/the-hollow-state-politics-the-left-behinds-vs-technorati.html
At this point in time, I’d like to see a Trump/Cruz ticket!
Pastor Wilson, you call the problem “father hunger” — I believe a better diagnosis would be “chronic kinglessness”.
I just realized that Pastor Wilson made a second major logical flaw in the argument. What bargaining power does Rubio have by getting out of the race before Florida? Cruz CAN’T win Florida. He’s polling at 12% there, 30 points behind Trump and Rubio. Even if Rubio quit and shifted 80% of his voters over to Cruz (impossible to happen when you’re talking about 40% of the electorate), he STILL couldn’t get Cruz to victory. And Florida is a winner-take-all primary, so only the winner matters. If Rubio stays in the race until Florida and wins, then he has more… Read more »
I can see Rubio winning over people to conservatism… can’t see Cruz’s sanctimonious style fitting the stereotype of how moderates/nonChristians see conservative evangelicals persuading others to join conservatism. If you don’t see what I see, simply look to how in every poll Rubio does much better against Hillary. Rubio won’t make a “Gang of 8” mistake again, hasn’t before, and is rock solid in all other areas, strong hispanic base in Florida pressuring him to move somewhat to “center” on immigration makes his sin forgiveable, and there are more important things at stake. “Super Saturday” is his nadir, he’ll win… Read more »
lol Cruz the genuine christian that sends his wife to work and travel with other men instead of encouraging her to follow the bible…
anything passes for genuine these days..
meh by your metrics Trump, Hillary etc are all genuine christians
“meh by your metrics Trump, Hillary etc are all genuine christians”
lol
yes lol…
Can we have some moderation here? I’m all for forthright discussion, but the slander and content-free abusive comments really should go.