Donald and Hillary: Disasters Foreign and Domestic

In legislative matters and court appointments, the president shares powers with Congress, part of the checks and balances in our government. But in foreign affairs, because the world beyond our borders is less predictable and more dangerous, the president has greater freedom to act. For that reason, the consequences of his action in that sphere are potentially ominous. So NBC's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" with the two major candidates for White House, moderated by Matt Lauer, was an event of considerable importance. It was a combination of interview and town hall meeting with each candidate receiving a 25 minute grilling, first Hillary Clinton, followed by Donald Trump.

Mrs Clinton started strong. She came across as tough and steely, mentally sharp, and in command. But that was the first thirty seconds. Then she got what she deserved on her sketchy handing of classified information on her unsecured personal server, its consequences for national security, and its implications for the quality of her judgement. Much of her time on the hot seat centered on matters of dishonesty (explaining/spinning the never ending charges related to her emails) and bad judgement (her Iraq War vote, the Libya debacle, and the Iran nuclear deal she initiated). It was not a good night for her. Even the staging  was awkward. The way she wiggled her way back onto her stool after each walkabout was painful to watch.

Mr Trump was amazing, but only in this: he still knows nothing at all about foreign policy, its history, principles, and conduct. And apparently he's fine with that. One would think that after the convention in the lead up to the debates he would have gathered his advisors and reviewed the various hot spots, asking in each case: What are the issues, what are the dangers, and what are the options? He might have met with a sympathetic professor for a condensed version of POL 208 Introduction to International Relations. "Just give me the highlights: the broad principles and key terms." But evidently he doesn't care. Perhaps he doesn't expect to win or doesn't really want to. The one point on which he became quite animated, however, was what he saw as our missed opportunity in Iraq to grab their oil. "To the victor go the spoils," he reminded us, as though citing a truism. Has he thought about how that would change all our international relations, and even change us. It's a short step from seizing oil to pay for an invasion to invading in order to seize oil or whatever booty may be had.

But how did last night help a voter who is perplexed by the prospect of two seemingly equally repulsive and nationally disastrous alternatives?

If your chief concern for this country is for a foreign policy that secures our national security and if, as Mitt Romney claimed (quite plausibly) in 2012, our chief national security threat is a resurgent Russia, then Hillary Clinton should get your vote. I expect that she has learned from her failed reset attempt and is bitterly resentful toward Russian president Vladimir Putin for his likely involvement in exposing her incriminating emails and disrupting the Democratic National Convention. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is striking soft on Putin, behaving almost like the Russian strongman's stooge. He admires Putin's "leadership" and blames the United States for our currently tense relationship. Trump believes that with his friendlier approach, co-operation is sure to follow. Call it a "reset," if you will.

However, if the chief concern facing our country is the freedom of Christ's people to live out their Christian lives with integrity and protecting the weakest and most innocent among us from an intensified abortion holocaust (I can imagine that these are high priorities for God, the Lord and Judge of the nations), then Trump would be where to send your vote. Not that he cares about these issues. Indeed, at the Republican National Convention he signaled his sympathies with "LGBTQ" people in what they see as their mortal struggle with traditional Christianity and its faithful adherents. (But he would fight to the death for our freedom to say "Merry Christmas" in a shopping mall! So we at least have that.) And he is only professedly (and that recently so) but unconvincingly pro-life. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is openly and implacably hostile to Christian concerns in these matters. There doesn't appear to be much that she sincerely believes, but her core convictions certainly include (besides enriching herself and her political war chest) the most militant feminist orthodoxy and the advancing logic of the sexual revolution. So if elected president, she will be hound and henchman for the LGBTs and will spare no effort to demolish whatever protections exist for babies in the womb.

None of this is to say that anything is predictable. Trump could end up simply a milder enemy of Christianity and friend of murdering moms than Hillary would be while destroying the American conservative movement in the process (read Prof. Tom Nichols on the latter) and failing or refusing to deliver on conservative Supreme Court hopes. He could also conceivably lead us into WWIII through sheer clumsy bombast.  Alternatively, Hillary Clinton could find herself stalled in her diabolical schemes by Republican congressional opposition, legal entanglements (these grow where our Hillary goes), and a united Christian front of her own making, meanwhile saving Eastern Europe and NATO from the Russian bear out of sheer desire for personal revenge.

When you're dealing with ignorance, vanity, incompetence, treachery, and mendacity on this level, the voter's confidence in his or her ability to predict the consequences of a candidate's election is discouragingly low. One must either judge which one issue is the pivotal issue for the nation (for example, slavery in 1860) or judge that neither candidate meets even the minimal requirements for the office and so either vote for a third candidate who does, write in a candidate, or vote only in the "down ticket" races.

We should all learn a lesson from this and sober up for 2020.

An Atheist Ally of Religion? Sounds Reasonable

I repost this from a 2007 post at my Principalities and Powers blog. Someone has recently drawn new attention to it for the connection Dalrymple draws between Christianity (publicly hated) and the  benefits of Western civilization (freedom, equality, compassion, etc.).  Daniel Lattier writes, "you can't enjoy the fruit by cutting down the tree." (Well, you can, but your children won't.)

***********

In the recent issue of City Journal (Autumn 2007), Theodore Dalrymple contributes his thoughts on the current “epidemic of rash books” by people whom we are calling neo-atheists, people such as Daniel Dennett, A. C. Grayling, Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, for whom we here at The King’s College have a special fondness – despite his efforts to discourage our affections – because he was recently our guest.

Dalrymple’s essay, “What the New Atheists Don’t See: To Regret Religion is to Regret Western Civilization,” is a deeply humane and touchingly generous consideration of the controversy. It does not surprise me to find a defense of religious faith that is eloquent and profoundly sensible. It is a refreshing surprise, however, that it comes from a self-described atheist.

While the whole essay is a delight, both intellectually and aesthetically, l will hazard injustice by sharing two of his points. First, he says that even these scribbling neo-atheists find it impossible to avoid the language of teleology. Viewing the world as having purpose appears to be inescapable for us. “I think Dennett’s use of the language of evaluation and purpose is evidence of a deep-seated metaphysical belief (however caused) that Providence exists in the universe, a belief that few people, confronted by the mystery of beauty and of existence itself, escape entirely.” The very weapons we turn against God bear the evidence of his handiwork and proclaim him.

Though these currently popular authors see the Taliban and their atrocities in every religious person, Dalrymple, noting the rarity of religiously motivated cruelty, draws attention to the decency that the eternal perspective engenders in by far most people who genuinely embrace it. After quoting from a meditation by Bishop Joseph Hall(1574-1656) on contentment and self-control, Dalrymple concludes that, “moderation comes more naturally to the man who believes in something not merely higher than himself, but higher than mankind. After all, the greatest enjoyment of the usages of this world, even to excess, might seem rational when the usages of this world are all that there is.” It is at least arguable that unsentimental, atheistic rationalism leads logically to debauchery and ultimately to tyranny.

He drives home this connection between piety and moderation by comparing the genuine fruit of Christian faith with what these grumpy anti-theists have to offer:

“Let us compare Hall’s meditation “Upon the Sight of a Harlot Carted” with Harris’s statement that some people ought perhaps to be killed for their beliefs:

With what noise, and tumult, and zeal of solemn justice, is this sin punished! The streets are not more full of beholders, than clamours. Every one strives to express his detestation of the fact, by some token of revenge: one casts mire, another water, another rotten eggs, upon the miserable offender. Neither, indeed, is she worthy of less: but, in the mean time, no man looks home to himself. It is no uncharity to say, that too many insult in this just punishment, who have deserved more. . . . Public sins have more shame; private may have more guilt. If the world cannot charge me of those, it is enough, that I can charge my soul of worse. Let others rejoice, in these public executions: let me pity the sins of others, and be humbled under the sense of my own.

“Who sounds more charitable, more generous, more just, more profound, more honest, more humane: Sam Harris or Joseph Hall, D.D., late lord bishop of Exeter and of Norwich?”

This article brought to mind my doctoral studies at Boston College(1985-92). The political science department there was a rare gathering of several political theorists and political scientists all of whom were either students of Leo Strauss, students of his best students, or deeply influenced by him. None of them was a Christian, nor even particularly religious (to my knowledge), but they respected the weight of the Christian tradition and the serious alternative that it presents to rationalism, both classical and modern. In other words, they respected the legitimacy of the Jerusalem versus Athens debate, as any seriously reflective person would. Of course, they opted for Athens, but there was nonetheless a fruitful conversation between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, agnostics and atheists. And the world is a better place for it.

Dalrymple is clearly an atheist with whom I could have a conversation, though with this particular atheist I would surely do most of the listening.

Is Trump Christianity’s Friend or Not?

Donald Trump (who as candidate for the presidency is now Donald J. Trump) took the stage at the Republican National Convention to deliver his acceptance speech, fully the populist we have come to expect. But he also revealed more than we have seen on the campaign trail. Thursday night, Donald the Democrat showed himself. And the partisan crowd cheered, though perhaps just from emotional momentum. I wonder how they feel the morning after.

The bad boy Donald was there. He promised the wall and to ban Muslim immigration. Actually, he only used the “Muslim” once in his speech and it was not in this connection. He said, “we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.” Presumably these nations of origin include France and Belgium.

There were also some welcome affirmations. He got down to the fundamentals of political theory when he stated: “The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.” He said he joined the race for the White House “so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves.” That is a biblical view of government. The Old Testament prophets rebuked the leaders of Israel for not acting on it.

In populist fashion, and perhaps credibly, Trump presented himself as a regular guy from Queens – despite the inherited wealth, the prep school, and the lifestyle of the rich and famous. He can be crude because regular guys like the electricians and bricklayers he talks with on the job site can be crude and he speaks their language. He connects with ordinary people and their concerns, and gives voice to those concerns. “I am your voice,” he assured us. This horrifies both the liberal elite and the conservative cognoscenti.

For the most part, people can be trusted to identify and defend their interests. Our system of political and economic liberty presupposes that. But ordinary people don’t necessarily grasp the big picture or the fundamental principles on which the defense of their interests depend. The cognoscenti do. Neither Adam Smith nor the architects of our republic were ordinary people.

Donald Trump is not guided by political theory. But he is guided by convictions he has held all his life. For example, he has been complaining about bad trade deals for decades. And for decades he has been a Democrat. Last night, the Republican Party nominated a Democrat to be its 2016 candidate for president. It’s not just the economic protectionism. His daughter Ivanka introduced him with assurances that he will push hard for universal access to daycare for working mothers. This is a big government, feminist policy proposal that Democrats have been advocating for 30 years. It not only recognizes women’s participation in the workforce; it will encourage it. It will also thus further fracture the home and dilute the value of an individual income whether the father’s or that of the single mother. She also rolled out the “equal-pay-for-equal-work” complaint which has no basis in 2016 reality but which Democrats like Hillary Clinton continue to cite as a major justice issue of our day. The crowd cheered anyway.

Then there was the homosexual theme. Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was wearing a pink triangle lapel pin during his interview with Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Then tech mogul Peter Thiel, one of the most prominent speakers on the most important evening of the convention, affirmed with campaign approval: “I am proud to be gay. I am proud to be a Republican. But most of all, I am proud to be an American. I don't pretend to agree with every plank in our party's platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline.” The crowd started cheering at the word “gay” and it built from there. Apparently the Trump supporters at the convention were Democrats too. Apparently it was the Democratic National Convention #1, to be followed by #2 next week. Perhaps that overstates the point.

Then Trump himself stopped far short of where Barack Obama has gone since his election in 2008 and where Hillary Clinton will charge with battle cries next week: the complete normalization of every form of omnisexuality and the severe punishment of anyone who stands in its way or even privately disagrees with it. Trump didn’t promise to protect them from Christians or from moral conservatives, but only from Islamic jihadists. “Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted [the] LGBTQ community. No good. And we're going to stop it. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me." The crowd roared their approval. Then he added, off script of course: "And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.”

The fact that he went beyond the now common term LGBT and added the Q was a signal to that faction that he sympathizes and will defend their interests. The previous night, Lynne Patton, vice president of the Eric Trump Foundation and a highly placed black woman in the Trump universe, and thus a strategic speaker, included in her list of answers to Black Lives Matter: “LGBTQ lives matter.” She also included the Q which stands for either questioning or queer or both.

The question for Christian voters is this. What is the relationship between Trump’s signaled support for LGBT concerns and religious liberty which has come widely under assault by that faction? Keep in mind that this is no longer 1980. The Christian concern today are not to restore Christian America. It is simply to preserve the freedom to live their Christian lives consistent with their faith, whether in their homes, businesses, schools and colleges, or even churches. Angry and vengeful forces of progressive cultural enlightenment are battering on these doors to find, silence, and rehabilitate any remaining holdouts against the post-modern sexual revolution of godless human autonomy. Yes, that’s how I would put it.

In his speech, Trump thanked evangelicals and religious people for their support. But he made no mention of religious liberty. Ivanka called him the champion of the helpless and forgotten, but the candidate himself made no claim to be our champion in this defensive fight.

So where does he stand? There’s a little over three months left for seeking clarification on this. Perhaps Jerry Falwell Jr could press his friend on this. Vice-president Pence, who is “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order,” is certainly well-positioned to lobby for the protection of law for God’s people.

Donald Trump is a Democrat – a law and order, foreign policy hawk Democrat. Insofar as the Grand Old Party is now the party of Trump and his descendants and all the apparent Democrats who cheered him from the convention floor last night, there is no more Republican Party. So regardless of whom we elect in November, it may be time to draw out of the Republican Congressional delegation a philosophically conservative and sympathetically Christian party that would present itself as being in everyone’s interest. Call it the Liberty Party or hijack the Constitution Party. But big government, progressive, Trumpist populism cannot remain the only viable alternative to the post-Obama Democrats.