On Fascism, the New Right, and the Decline of the Liberal Order

There seems to be a seismic shift happening politically.  Away from the classical liberal, internationalist order of the last 80 years or so, to either a soft communism on the left, or soft fascism on the right.

Let me explain!

After World War II, the world was firmly set against the evils of nationalism, seeing what it did when left unchecked in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  The geopolitical consensus was: let’s work together as nations, and not pursue our own national ambitions aggressively and/or belligerently, or we’ll have to go through all that again.  (The formation of the United Nations was a part of this intent, though its structural and functional flaws run deep, to the point of being of little use.)  Still, the functional relationship especially among Western nations became substantially more cordial.  “We want to basically be friends, and not provoke or get mad at each other, so we don’t wind up in another world war.”

 

This was the intangible foundation of the classical liberal internationalist order, and it was assumed as bedrock, until about 10 minutes ago.

 

But the younger political generation, from AOC to JD Vance and their followers, do NOT think this way.  They are much more willing to use political force to advance their communist or nationalist agenda, with less concern for how it provokes others.

 

I’d rather have a national political agenda that collaborates with friendly nations, instead of seeking to get all we can out of them, America first, style.  I oppose Trump in this, but don’t think he’s about to provoke WWIII anywhere, either.

 

The extreme polarization of society in the last 10-15 years has led to a greater willingness, especially among the young, to exert political force on the other side, rather than resort to persuasion.

 

Fascism needs further comment.  The right is exasperated that the left constantly accuses them of fascism just for not agreeing with them.  I share that frustration, but also see signs that the new right IS adopting some elements of fascism, just as the left is adopting communism.  This usually gets inflammatory in heated discussion, but let’s try being rational a moment.

 

The first definition of fascism is, “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator.”  Now, Trump is no dictator.  The overreach of executive power has been going on for decades, from GW Bush’s national security after 9/11, to Obama’s “I have a phone and a pen,” and on.  Trump is merely continuing what they and Biden have continued and expanded.  But I don’t like it – it’s very Imperial Rome.  The Republic is dying.  We need a limited government conservative in office, again.  We don’t have it, and I don’t see it in the foreseeable future.

 

The second definition of fascism is, “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls.”

I’m seeing this more and more, in Trump’s insistence with private businesses that they do business a certain way in a certain place, for the national interest.  There is a case to be made for protecting the American economy, here, but it comes at the price of liberty.  I’m not sure where to draw the line, honestly.  But I do know we are moving more toward subjecting the private market to government control, whether from the left or from the right.  The recent 10% stake in Intel by the Federal government is a clear example.  Not good.

 

The third definition of fascism: “violent suppression of the opposition.”  This one has the least credibility as an accusation from the left against the right.  The only violent suppression happening is against criminals and illegals in our country, which should be done.  The extreme opposition to law and order on the left makes me most willing to accept the right-wing conspiracies that the left WANTS more crime and illegals, to destabilize the country and give them more power.

 

The last definition of fascism: “a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”  I’m seeing belligerent nationalism, definitely.  Take our allies for all the tariff taxes they’re worth.  Who cares about Ukrainians being assaulted when we’ve got our own borders and people to deal with?  Sometimes this comes with a tinge of racism: we want an ethnically cohesive culture (Stephen Wolfe).  The goal is to foster Western culture and American identity, which I appreciate.  But to force companies to hire Americans at twice the labor cost as Indians doesn’t seem right to me, either.  And as a country we don’t know who we are anymore, so instilling an American identity in immigrants, or sussing out if they own it on a case by case basis before letting them into the USA, isn’t feasible.  This gives some credence to the new right’s argument that we should just stop all immigration until we’ve got that sorted out.  But in the meantime, if it ever happens, there are real, persecuted asylum seekers who are getting booted back to their countries where they’ll be tortured and maybe killed when we send them home.  To do that to people in the name of nationalism, to abandon Ukraine to Russia’s invasion, is an ethical failure on our part.

 

I would prefer a return to a classically liberal order, where freedom for all is respected, but I fear it is gone.  Such freedom has been too much abused, and people are sick of the results.  As Chuck Colson liked to say, if we won’t rule ourselves, we will be ruled by others.  Now we’re just fighting over who will rule us with an iron fist, and that fight will get more and more desperate, as we realize it WILL be an iron fist, either way.  I don’t want Christian morality imposed in all its details on the entire populace, but neither do I want to see more abortion carnage and LGBT perversion celebrated.  People are just looking for basic sanity these days, but most political actors don’t seem very interested in that.

Against Pro-life Abolitionism - part 1

In politics, the main goal is to propose policy that will pass, that is as close to your worldview as possible.

In theology, the goal is to articulate as biblical a worldview as possible.

Both of these are good stewardship of differing vocations.

But they sometimes don’t play well together.

 

Theonomists want there to be a single goal, same in politics and theology, but that’s absurd.  Do lawyers and doctors have the exact same calling, besides the generic, “to help people”?

 

I’m not advocating for a radical division between the two kingdoms (R2K).  It’s not theonomy or R2K.  There are different spheres of activity with differing specific aims (Kuyper).

 

Say no to pro-life abolitionism.  They are currently fighting against and defeating pro-life bills that would outlaw SOME abortions, just because they don’t outlaw ALL abortions.

Their zeal to call for repentance directly in political life is admirable, but then you have to do the work of making a law with many in the room who do not repent.  Do we just take our ball and go home and leave them to write their ungodly rules for us, or work to get our nation as close to godliness as we can?  Are we anabaptists, now, who drop out of society when they don’t meet God’s standards rigorously enough for us?

 

Should I not go to work tomorrow because I know I’m not going to do my job perfectly?

 

Perfectionism in theological sanctification wreaks all kinds of carnage on people.

Abolitionist perfectionism will do the same.

 

Working for the possible politically is not compromise, but courage.  It’s actual engagement with the culture, instead of demanding all or nothing like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

 

Abolitionists overly confuse the theological and political.  Of course we want to apply God’s truth to the public square.  But we don’t quit and work against people and legislators accepting SOME of it, if they refuse to accept ALL of it.

America First, and Ukraine

There's an irony in the current nationalism movement on the right.

The hunch, the original premise that I'm starting with is this: those who wear the nationalist badge with pride are the same people who want us out of Ukraine.  We could be using that money on our own border, after all, they say.  And these two groups are also roughly equal with the "America First" crowd.

This belies the slogan.  It isn't "America First."  It's "America Only."  It's the same isolationism that let Europe drift into World War II in the 1920s and 30s.

So the irony is this: a truly Christian nation would certainly protect its own citizens and borders first - agreed.  But it would ALSO seek to help weaker nations being preyed upon by stronger ones.  Only myopic vision would assume that what a global neighbor does won't affect us.  Would say, "If the president won't defend our border, then we shouldn't help the kid getting beat up by the schoolyard bully, either."

Two wrongs do not make a right.  We are not protecting and honoring our own heritage and civilization as we ought to do, true.  But at least we are helping other vulnerable nations to stay their own nation.

I believe the Bidens have profited corruptly from bribery in Ukraine.  That does not mean we should let the Ukrainian people be literally conquered by Russia, to spite the Bidens.  A whole people does not deserve subjugation because a few of its leaders are (were?) corrupt.

Christian nations would not make such calculations: "We know you're being invaded by an authoritarian, but we're not sure if you'll use our money well, so you can't have it."  

We've already let dictators conquer Hong Kong, once a bastion of free capitalism.  Now Ukraine.  Taiwan is next.  It's like we are willfully denying there is a Cold War continuing.  And that Reagan won it by peace through strength.

Populism, Elites, and the Benedict Option

Populism levels and diminishes the importance of institutions and authorities.  I find it a cancerous blight on our current political discourse.

I'm going to make an analogy from the theological idea of Sola Scriptura to political populism, so stick with me.

Recently I was discussing the "No Creed but Christ" creed with a friend.  See what I did there?  We should have no other authority than the Word of God, it is argued.  Sola Scriptura argues that Scripture alone is the ULTIMATE authority, but not that it is the ONLY one.  There are legitimate authorities in the family, church, institutions of learning, and so on.  There are specialists who know more about a field than the general populace.  These authorities aren't infallible (ahem-Fauci-ahem), but when they get it wrong we are sorely tempted to just shove them aside, and believe what we read on the internet ourselves.

Do you see the connection?  There is a parallel error in rejecting the authority of any theological confessions, and rejecting political authority.

Now, the confessions should be rejected at any part we find them to deviate from Scripture.  Just as a politician should be challenged when he advocates an unconstitutional policy.  But the ecclesiastical authority of the confession remains, as does the political office.  They are both needed for good order in civil and church society.

So here's my punchline: conservative Christians who rail against political elites, but revere their confessions, are deeply inconsistent.  Let us respect and honor earthly authorities in every part of our lives, as Scripture calls for, and not pick and choose.

Let me head off an objection: "But our loyalty is to the document, not to the people filling the office!" it is claimed.  This is true, but only in part.  Office holders should be true to the written, social contract, yes.  But you don't have a nation without people chosen to set policy, and other office-holders chosen to decide whether it is judged as in line with the society's charter.  You don't have a church without pastors to teach the Bible.  We need to be Bereans, but if each individual is the sole arbiter of whether the pastor is faithful to the text, we have chaos.  As Aaron Renn has argued recently, a society needs elites, even when we are deeply frustrated at their wicked recent behavior.  

(This is what the Magisterial Reformation was all about: Luther and Calvin and the other main figures sought to uphold and work with the civil rulers.  The Anabaptist radicals in stark contrast sought to reject them, drop out of an incurably corrupt society, and set up their own parallel institutions / communes.  I fear the conservative church is becoming Anabaptist instead of Magisterial in its politics.)

We can deem the policy our society adopts to be wrong, and seek to change it, but we are still part of that society.  Dropping out, a la the Benedict Option, can only be achieved in part.  The church is to be salt and light in the world.

This principle also doesn't mean we should meekly go along with bad policy.  Strenuous objection is a form of honor.  If a Christian father converts to Islam, and his wife and 19 year old son who live with him just shrug and leave him, they are not honoring him.  They should plead and persuade and convince him to return to the faith first.  And if he doesn't, he is still their father.

We used to mock the Hollywood star who vowed to move to Canada if the Republican candidate is elected.  Now such moves are literally happening en masse.  This is not wrong, per se.  We don't have the same loyalty to a state or country as we do to our family.  But we are naive idealists if we think we HAVE to live in a civil society that shares our values in large part.  Most Christians who have lived throughout history have NOT done so, and yet prospered spiritually.

So let's find ways to honor and work with authorities political and churchly, with whom we disagree.  I fully admit there is a swamp to drain out there.  But we are not egalitarians either, setting ourselves up individually as the arbiter of all truth.

Covid, and Now Elections

I want to bring up a sensitive topic in conservative churches right now.  

An elephant in the room that we are not talking about.  

The issue is the legitimacy of elections, and how deep the corruption goes in our political system.  This issue's figurehead is Donald Trump.  If you think elections have been and will be stolen, and the rot goes all the way down, you'll likely vote for Trump.  If, on the other hand, you think elections were not stolen (but were heavily media-influenced), if you think the system is salvageable by sane, moderate people, you are probably not a Trump supporter.

Both groups are now sitting in the same set of pews, eyeing each other.

The way church leaders in MY circles are handling this (and this is who I'm critiquing!), is by ignoring it and talking about Covid.  How we all know now what to do next time.  We are finding a false unity in the Covid post-mortem, when we should be dealing directly with our current disagreement.

As an aside, the Covid post-mortem really bothers me.  Almost every church with very few exceptions shut down for 4-12 weeks in March-June 2020.  But now we talk as if we didn't, and that we were all on the same page against shutdowns throughout.  We weren't.  We brag about how quickly we reopened.  A bit of honesty and humility here would be refreshing.

Set that aside.  I don't think the church is learning very well how to deal with disagreements.  The Covid issue was acute, and people voted with their feet, whether to mask or not.  Many churches have a whole new set of people in their pews because of this.  That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a yellow flag.

How will each church handle the 2024 election?

Will we wind up with churches proclaiming an election-denying, Trump-supporting position, and people vote with their feet to go there?  I would urge that this should not be.

Politically, this is a moment in our country where the Republican-voting populace is trying to figure out where to land on this issue.  This is a moment for the church to speak.  It's probably unwise to come down hard for or against Trump, as a church voice.

But laying out basic political principles, and how to disagree well is direly needed.

Next time I'll share my thoughts on that.

A Political Exercise

I took a moment this afternoon for a political exercise.

Feel free to follow what I did below if you'd like.

Step 1: This is in my email from the county Republican party leadership

"Two bills are coming before the Michigan House of Representatives that pose a serious threat to freedom of religion and freedom of speech in Michigan. HB4474 and its companion bill, HB4475, which both aim to criminalize hate speech. These bills, if passed in to law, would be used to criminalize any vocal opposition to the democrats woke agenda. For example, vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law. Simply put, if passed, it would make it a felony for any one of us to speak out against the LGBTQ community, causing "mental anguish" to a protected class as outlined by the expanded Elliot Larson Act. If found guilty, one could face inprisionment for not more than 5 years, a $10,000 fine, or both. These are dangerous pieces of legislation that seek to interfere with the God-given freedom of speech and freedom of religion that are ours in Christ Jesus.

We are asking that each of you write a letter addressed to State Representative Jennifer Conlin urging her to vote "NO" on this legislation."

At the end, they include the actual legislation documents.  Helpful!

2. I go to read the summary, which is here.  I'll pause while you go and read...

3. I'm confused, and a bit disturbed.  The legislation does not look to ME like it criminalizes my next sermon on Romans 1, as claimed above.

4.  I send the following to my esteemed local party leaders:
Hello,
I'm a conservative pastor in Howell, and just read your letter, and the document summary of HB4474.
I believe you are mistaken to claim that 
"vocal opposition against CRT from a podium at a school board meeting or preaching the gospel-view of the LGBTQ+ agenda from a pulpit on a Sunday morning, could be criminally prosecuted with felony charges if these bills became law."

Any opposition to CRT/LGBT should be done respectfully, without threats that intimidate anyone.  We should oppose the idea, but not threaten the person.  The language I read doesn't allow prosecution just because someone feels threatened.  See especially the definition of intimidate on pg 2, allowing constitutionally protected speech.  "I felt traumatized because they said something I disagreed with" doesn't seem allowed, here.
The law is mistaken to categorize trans people as ethnicities, and should be opposed.  And adding "intimidate" IS a bad idea.  But it should be opposed because it is unnecessary.  It does not criminalize my sermon from Romans 1.

I'm asking you to reconsider your rhetoric and rationale - sending the rank and file to state reps with questionable objections to a bill, is a tactic that will backfire in the long run.



5. After sending and thinking about it for 2 minutes, I realize.  "Huh.  If I'm going to critique their approach, I'd better show them how I think it should be done."  So I write and send a letter to our State Representative, thusly.
"June 15, 2023
Dear Representative Conlin, 
I am writing to ask you to vote NO on HB4474 and 4475.
Including gender identity and expression alongside sexual orientation is unnecessary.  The former is included in the latter phrase. 
Adding the behavior of “intimidate” to a hate crime is dangerously ambiguous.  Expressing an opinion in anger is enough for many to feel intimidated, today.  Can they sue, now?  I see some guardrails in the law: “cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, etc.”  “Intimidate would not include constitutionally protected activity.” 
But that makes adding “intimidate” to the law unnecessary, and unwise.  Hate crimes should be limited to violence and specific threats of it, not expanded to include FEELING intimidated.
Thank you for your consideration.

6. This is what sane political interaction looks like, in my mind.  NOT mimicking the antics and over-the-top rhetoric of your favorite entertainer-podcasters online.  I'd love to know if you think I'm off base.

 

An Exercise in Memery

 

I'm not really into political memes much, but I can't stop laughing at this one.

Mainly, I want to know what Trump said that made Tucker laugh so hard, I guess...

Memes get a lot said at once, on multiple levels, so they are powerful.

But they are also dangerous, because what's said is mere assertion or assumption, never persuasion.

Memes simply reinforce our priors, and polarize us further.

Much better to read persuasive pieces which sharpen the mind.

Or at least ask yourself, why is this true?  Why am I laughing?

Here are some assertions this one makes.  Pretty sure I agree with all except the last one.

1. A Trump-Tucker alliance is felicitous.

2. The raid was sent by Biden or his cronies.

3. Trump's family is cleaner, and less hypocritical than Biden's.

4. Trump can outwit the deep state's designs on him.

The Supreme Court Considers Abortion

Two days ago, I listened to the oral arguments before our nation’s Supreme Court regarding abortion.
 
Mississippi has enacted a law banning abortion after 15 weeks’ gestation.
Abortion advocates have challenged it.
 
At 10:00am sharp Wednesday, the court heard an argument from MS, for the first time I believe in almost 50 years, that Roe v. Wade should be overruled, and that the states should be able to decide the issue themselves.

 
Some observations:
 
1. The liberal justices used irrational emotion to make their case.
They were appalled, incredulous, that this was even being argued.  Such a basic right!  Their tone and rhetoric was emotional.  I think they are on the defensive know the majority of justices may go against them.
 

2. They also pointed to precedent.  Overturning precedent (Roe) will make us seem political and corrode the authority of our institution.  This is a play at the chief justice’s vote.  His priority is to maintain the prestige of the institution, more than anything.  Since that should not be the ultimate priority of ANY institution, he is manipulable, and will wind up corroding the authority of the institution, by his own decisions.  (This happens everywhere in life: if you idolize the church, you’ll warp its shape and function into something it shouldn’t be.  If you idolize the family, you won’t raise your kids rightly.)
 

3. Sotomayor’s argument was the most gruesome: brain-dead people respond muscularly to pokes, so why is fetal pain relevant?  God will judge this with His vengeance, in His time.  As He will the court’s past declarations in Casey and Obergefell, that people have a right to define life and its meaning as they want to.
 

4. The conservatives are divided between overturning Roe, or just adjusting its criteria of when the timeline of gestation in a law becomes unconstitutional.  Alito and Thomas’ line of questioning showed they are willing to overturn an “egregiously wrong” decision, regardless of recent precedent, as the court did against Brown and Plessy.  But Roberts wants a narrow ruling, as always, just deciding if MS’s 15 week rule is constitutional.  This will likely result in Roe NOT being overturned, I think.  Gorsuch will follow Roberts, Barrett will side with Alito and Thomas.  The 6 of them WILL uphold the MS law, which is a good thing.  But only 3 are willing to overrule Roe, outright.
 

5. Don’t forget the political fallout from this.  I believe it will galvanize the left to come out in force in the mid-terms next year.  The coming red wave everyone is talking about will be blunted by this decision, which will be revealed in June – perfect timing for elections in November.  People tend to vote AGAINST what just happened, not so much FOR what they want.

Roundup of Local and State Politics

I went to an informative political meeting last night.

Our county GOP gave four candidates for governor a few minutes each for speeches.

Most people I know are agreed, we need to defeat Governor Whitmer in 2022.  That was the main point last night.  The unasked and unanswered question is - HOW?  What kind of candidate and message will Michiganders prefer to Whitmer's governance?

Here's my quick take on each candidate:

Ralph Rebandt is a pastor from the suburbs of Detroit - anger is not a solution, and we need solutions.

Bob Scott is a local from Livingston County - not well-spoken, and a bit kooky and conspiratorial.  It never works with the average Joe to say Whitmer WANTS to crash the economy.

Garrett Soldano started a popular Facebook group against MI Covid restrictions that got shut down, and he co-chaired the Unlock Michigan petition.  Well-spoken, but his whole message was opposition to Whitmer.  Invoked Trump and the Owosso barber.

Ryan Kelly is from Allendale.  He had the best wide-ranging and specific speech.  Anti-Communism, Critical Race Theory, cancel culture, BLM, and transgender agenda.  Invoked God and Reagan.

It's very early in the process, but hearing each candidate speak, and the response of the crowd of 150-200, helped me sort some things out.

1. Anger is the main mood.  Soldano and Kelly were by far most popular, and were 90% against things angrily, especially Whitmer, which got the most applause.

2. Rebandt and Scott were given the least time.  Scott, with reason.  But Rebandt's "anger is not a solution"  message addressed directly what the crowd needed to hear.  Because angry opposition is obviously what they wanted to hear.  And he was not given the time to expand his case.  I realized how much party operatives can mold messages and campaigns, giving more or less air time to the message they think the people want to hear.  Do they ever consider what needs to be said?  A statesman's call is to direct energy in the populace in constructive directions, not pander to and amplify energy and let it run wild.  I didn't see much of the statesman last night.  I saw a party hoping to turn out the vote based on anger.  Yikes.

3. About 25% of the crowd wore something supporting Trump.  The most popular candidate invoked him directly.  The party needs to stop looking backward in anger, tied to a deeply unpopular president, and find a fresh face, or it is doomed.  The emcee said at the beginning that if 51% of the country (GOP voters, she meant!) are split 50-50, we can't win.  This is also very true.

4. Speaking well is essential to leadership.  Flaws in this distract from the message and passion the speaker wants to convey to the audience.  No flaws enhance the message and impression of the speaker.

5. On race.  MLK's dream regarding race has come true in the Republican party, and this was evidenced last night.  From what I could tell, there were less than five minorities in the whole crowd, which is typical of Livingston County.  One is a school board member, two were African-Americans I didn't recognize.  But MLK's dream was not that there be a proportionate number of minorities represented equally throughout the country.  That is absurd.  

It turned out one of the African Americans was a candidate for Secretary of State.  She was very articulate and called for election integrity.  Not once did she or the emcee introducing her mention her race or gender.  The crowd responded as positively to her as the other speakers.  They judged her by her message, not her identity.

This is how America should be.

6. Detroit police chief Craig has not surfaced as a candidate, despite rumors a couple weeks ago he was on the verge of announcing.  He would dwarf these candidates.  So my family was speculating last night what has happened.  Did the GOP filter him out as not sufficiently conservative?  Is he waiting until later?  Did he decide against running?  No idea.

7. Christians need to remember to keep their ultimate hope in the Lord, not a political candidate to defeat bad politicians.  Going to a meeting like this isn't inherently idolatry, but it can express it, if your heart is misdirected in that way.  Saying, as I do right now, "I hope Craig runs and that he's conservative," or, "I hope Rebandt wins," does not mean my ultimate hope is not in Jesus Christ to save and restore Michigan and all the nations.

On Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday morning, I listened to a short biography of Saint Augustine, and learned that he was a bishop for thirty years.  His was a productive life, with a rocky start.

 

That same afternoon I heard of Rush’s death.  I don’t mean to compare them morally, or in spiritual stature, but Rush also had a rocky start in his career, then about 30 years of successful performance at the apex of his field.

 

And it was 30 years ago, almost exactly, that I started listening to Rush.  He was my introduction to conservative politics, at the same time that RC Sproul was awakening me to the delights of Biblical conservative theology.  It set my course of early reading: Thatcher, Reagan, Churchill.  Ryle, MacArthur, Piper.

 

 

But what made Rush so significant?

 

Audience size

Clocking in at 25-ish million listeners every week, Rush could not be ignored.  How did he attract so many?  That’s the real story…

 

Liberal news bias

Rush filled a big gap in the media world.  As establishment media went from Walter Cronkite’s sound journalism to Dan Rather’s biased reporting, conservatives took note and sought other resources.  Sure, they had National Review, etc.   But daily news without the liberal bias was totally missing.  This bias was a new thing back when Rush started.  Conservative political opinion was suddenly and widely derided in all the news available.  Rush came on the scene and voiced without shame what half the country thought.  Instead of deferring to the beltway establishment, to which he was an outsider, he punched back and rejected their assumptions.  

Rush and Donald Trump were both loved by many for this.  The genius was that he tapped into conservative resentment at being mistreated, misrepresented, and biased against.  Listening to Rush was often a rush of feeling you were sticking it to the liberals who despised you.  This was confirmed to me yesterday, when the BBC came out with the news of Rush’s death, and quickly labeled his views “racist, misogynist, and homophobic.”  Wow.  Totally wrong.

Articulation of conservative principles

A sampling:

1. Less government intrusion and regulation.

2. Let Americans loose to make their own choices.

3. “Environmentalist wackos” aren’t following the science, but finding an excuse for the government to spend tons of money.

4. “Femi-nazis” are not happy people.  He played some feminist’s sound byte over and over: “We’re fierce!  We’re feminists!  And we’re in your face!”

5. Liberals pursue symbolism over substance.  Conservatives want to actually help the poor.  Liberals want to be seen as helping them by grandstanding and throwing money at them, which actually hurts.

 

 

Mixing News and Entertainment

After all the serious and stern Brokaws and NPRs of the world, here was a normal guy I could relate to, responding to the world with me, the way I would.  What a relief!

 

Rush tended his image carefully.  He avoided being seen as a policy wonk, insisting he was an entertainer.  He deftly mixed in important issues with a light hearted approach.  He wove together angry tirades against Clinton or Gore, with Reagan-style optimism that it is “morning in America.”  His serious listeners got mad when he spent his whole first Monday morning segments talking (bragging?) about the weekend golfing with some celebrities, or pow-wowing in the NFL owner’s box at the game.

 

The most brilliant aspect of his image was the braggadocio.  “With half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair” was a favorite tagline.  The genius of this was that his allies took it as good-natured ribbing.  But his enemies thought Rush was serious about himself, seething at his pride and arrogance, which confirmed conservatives in their view that liberals can’t take a joke.

 

 

The Down Side

So much for the significance factors.  Here’s a list for Rush-sympathizers to watch out for, as we look to a future America without Rush’s voice.

 

Rush was not a great moral example.

One of his earlier taglines: “I love the feminist movement.  Especially when I’m walking right behind it.”  Yikes.  He was married several times, swore on the show a lot, and didn’t make faith a major element of his show until the end.  I was thankful for his explicit testimony to faith in Jesus Christ that I saw about a month ago.  But the overall effect of his show was simply to validate the red-blooded American conservative male, with all his boys-will-be-boys moral failures.

 

 

Rush appealed to emotion more than we realize.

Anger was the most common.  A natural response, but not good to cultivate, long term.  I notice this when I listen to Ben Shapiro around my family.  They are struck by the negativity, the angry tone.  I think with Rush, too, this won out over the expressed optimism.  Conservatives have always sought to be happy warriors (Bill Buckley’s phrase), but do not often succeed.  The main gist of Rush’s show was to validate our anger at the way things are going in politics.

 

 

Rush was a master of ridicule

Tucker, Hannity, Shapiro and others follow this today, and it’s a bad legacy.  Deriding opponents is not a case against them.  Rejecting a liberal’s position should not result in feeling disgusted with them as a person.  We shouldn’t go there.  But Rush actively promoted that derision, and it’s a bad road to go down.  It isolates conservatives from everyone who isn’t on their team, stunting our potential to influence apolitical neighbors in our community.

 

 

Going forward

Rush was a Republican.  He galvanized Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and the Tea Party, later.  But toward the end, he was just an extension of their talking points, and I stopped listening.

 

The Republican party today is a mess.  Years back, Peggy Noonan interviewed Rush for her book on Reagan.  I don’t think that could happen today.  Noonan is wrapped up in her establishment connections, as her book makes clear.  Her weekly articles drip with moral repulsion for all things Trump.  Meanwhile, Trump and the populist Republicans couldn’t care less about those connections.  There is deep division over this, and you know what they say about a house divided…

 

We need people who know the establishment system, but who aren’t corrupted by it.  Right now we have populists who don’t know the system, so can’t do much but yell into a bullhorn.  They seek out Gab and Parler as we speak.  These are Rush’s GOP fans, and they are going to be a thorn in the side of the party leadership for a while.  And then we have establishment types like Noonan who care more about their insider people than they do about deep political reform.

 

 

Where to go from here?

 

Emphasize the positive

Conservative commentators gravitate to negative criticism of liberals in power.  Less of this, and more focus on individual enterprise and work ethic would go a long way.  Rush was right about this.

 

 

Ask who can fix our problems

This brings us to the faith question.  Liberals tend to be secular, and thus put faith in worldly things, like government.  Biden thinks spending a lot of money will fix the ‘Rona problem.  But Christians know that only Jesus justifying and sanctifying us will fix our social problems.  There will be the occasional governmental solution that helps, but its role is way more limited than we think (“there oughta be a law”…).

 

Rush pointed us to Jesus at the end of his life, which shows us the way, too.

Public policy matters.  Liberal policies harm, while conservative policies help, or let other institutions help.

But the ultimate issues are spiritual.  As Rush Limbaugh now knows.

Some Political Pigeon Holes and Random Thoughts

Populism

An over-riding belief that the ordinary man should be preferenced over the richer or more influential.

The Gamestop incident is a great example.  If you side with the day traders who stuck it to the rich hedge fund insiders, you are a populist.  If you play to the crowd by calling for draining the swamp, speaking against the well-connected establishment, you are a populist.  Trump was more a populist than a conservative.  It was easy for his followers to confuse the two, since they felt disenfranchised as the liberal media/political establishment was against them.

Trump-hater

The media has been pushing a false narrative for the last month, that Trump incited a riot and insurrection on January 6.  I don't think his actions and words were wise, challenging the election results so blatantly.  But he did not incite a riot.  Republicans are right to vote no on impeaching him - that doesn't make them "ever-Trumpers."

Big Tech Boycott

I'm fascinated that just 3-5 years ago, boycotts of Target or Starbucks were rejected by evangelicals.

But now, boycotting Google, Amazon, and Facebook is the in vogue thing.  What's the difference?  These last 3 are not more leftist than Target or Starbucks.  Maybe it is a lazy man's way of choosing other online options, while still insisting on attractive in-person options (gotta have your coffee).  I'm not sure.  Where else can I go to get good coffee, underwear, and home goods at rock bottom prices?

Seems like an arbitrary and selfish distinction between companies that I take offense at (google, amazon, etc.) that have online options, and those whose products I still want, though they are just as leftist (Starbucks, Target).

The Main Stream Media's Assault on Conservatism

 It seems the media is in an all-out assault on the Republican party right now.  They smell blood in the water, as it is naturally divided over the Trump "Stop the Steal" debacle.

News about the inauguration is a great example.  It assumes that a wide-scale assault is expected.  Which assumes that half the country wants to undo the election and keep Biden by force from office.  This is nonsense.  A couple hundred crazies do not represent half the country.

My local paper today had headlines about state capitol protests.  The "story" was that a tiny number of protestors came out for Trump claiming the election was illegit, with their guns, extremism, and weird attire.  And some normal, sane people came out in support of Governor Whitmer's lockdown policies.  That's the narrative we are to believe.

This is media malpractice.  It divides the country further.  Using the logical fallacy of bifurcation, the press is telling us that if you aren't for Biden, then you're a fringe insurrectionist.  It's an overt political play to sway people's thinking, done by those charged with reporting to us the facts in the most objective manner they can.  It's a travesty.

Most people are neither for the Proudboys, nor for ongoing lockdowns.  I don't want to give "Stop the Steal" any support at all - Biden's election is legit.  But I also don't support Biden's, Whitmer's, Newsome's, or Cuomo's COVID lockdowns at all.  Where is my viewpoint represented in the press?  It isn't.

Another headline: something like "Democracy has waned in the Trump era, poll shows."  It's just an opinion piece, disguised as news, arguing the bandwagon fallacy: most people think democracy has been hurt by Trump.

Another headline: some Republicans still voted to object to the electoral count, even after the Capitol was savaged!  Gasp!  The media moves the Overton window for the left.  A riot should not remove any reasonable objection to the election.  Objecting was a bit of a stunt to cater to the radical right, which I don't like so much.  But it's fine to say, "Hey there were irregularities here which ought to be looked into."  That doesn't put you on the side of viking man in the Senate chamber.

Does any of this mean Trump was blameless, to speak as he did Jan 6?  No.  He was reckless, given the moment.  But standard political speech is a bit militant ("let's fight"), without actually calling for violence.  The left is taking as much ground with the Jan 6 incident as they can.  Republicans are scattered and on the defensive, because the MEDIA (not Democrats) are attacking them.

Who to Vote for, If At All?

 Joel Belz’ commentary on World Magazine’s podcast, The World and Everything in It, on October 14 (at the end, 30:00 mark), about who to vote for is a classic case of evangelical Christian naivete, when it comes to politics.

He rightly rules out Biden, as every faithful Christian must, given his ardent support for abortion alone.  But he then goes on to give Trump deniers a righteous sense of rejecting rudeness and being careless with the truth.

Christians have struggled with perfectionism in politics for a long time.  Joel Belz still falls into it.  Your vote is not a valentine for a candidate, nor is it a religious action that before the Lord you believe this candidate has done nothing wrong before God (or even that he is in good standing with the Lord). 

No, your vote is a chess move on a political board.  It doesn’t endorse every imperfection of the candidate, not even unconfessed ones!  Votes should take account of the policies a candidate pursues long term, and the viable alternatives.

Don’t strain out the gnat and swallow the camel.  We’ll take a rough character who effects Christian policies over a nicer-appearing guy aggressively promoting abortion, sodomy, insistence that 8 year-old’s be allowed to transition their gender only on their say-so, and more.  Trump’s immigration policy has been very unhelpful and saddens me, but it pales in comparison to the good judges he has appointed, using the bully pulpit for pro-life, tax cuts, toughness to China, Iran and Russia, and more.

I believe personally that not voting for Trump in this election would be a sin of omission for the Christian.  Faithful Christians can disagree on several things I've listed above, but cannot vote for things God calls an abomination.  (There are three of those above, if you're counting.)  As a pastor, it isn’t something I’m going to go after members for.  Many are caught up in Belz’ perfectionism, and just can't pull the lever for Trump.  Teaching is the need of the day.  

Every non-vote for Trump is a boost for Biden and his wicked policies.  It would be failing to act when you could, to avert serious negative consequences to our country.

An Anatomy of Media Bias

I've seen a lot of media bias over the years, but something has changed, or intensified.

The Chris Wallace interview of President Trump recently is an example.  A Presidential interviewer in the past would never directly contradict a sitting president and tell him his facts are wrong to his face, but Wallace feels free to do so.  He would not do this if it were a Democrat.  Just contrast the media's behavior to Trump's COVID pressers with their behavior toward Cuomo's pressers, to get the idea.

In the same way, news articles today are routinely doing things that just a few years ago would have been called journalistic malpractice.

Here are some examples, all from my local paper in the last couple of days.


1. Misleading implications

This is a local mid-sized manufacturing business.  Notice how the sub-head implies wrong-doing on the part of the company in telling employees to continue to work.  The article itself details, though, that they did everything right: sending people home they were in the same room with, contact tracing, etc.

But that's not enough for the paper.  The Left's agenda is to reduce and disrupt the economy as much as possible ahead of the election, to give Trump the maximum disadvantage.  So the paper wanted the company featured to shut down completely, or some similar drastic measure, "out of an abundance of caution."

They won't come out and say that, of course.  But their agenda is revealed when they imply wrongdoing where there was none.  Why would the paper throw shade that way?  Because Thai Summit isn't acting as the paper thinks it should, to fit the editors' political agenda.  This is libelous journalistic malpractice.



2. Comments of support or negation within news reporting pieces

This whopper from today is a prime example on injecting opinion into news.  The first sentence is both a reporting of what Trump has said he may do, and an immediate argument against it!

In case it's too hard to read: "President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering sending federal officers into several American cities, including Detroit, despite mostly peaceful protests there in recent weeks."

3. Visual cues in the pictures
Body language, posture, and facial expression in pictures say a lot.
Trump above is in an apologetic and defensive position with his hands.  It's like the question from the first sentence has been asked ("but Detroit is mostly peaceful"), and this is his non-response.

Contrast that with this very positive feature on my Democratic Congresswoman, where her hands and face show fervency and poise, making an important point we should hear.  (And she's holding a mask.)  This feature took up most of the front page today.

4.  Omissions, technicalities, and contradictions "In other News"
The Trump piece was page three.  Remember the article saying in the first sentence that Trump's action would be irrational because Detroit's protests have been "mostly peaceful"?

Here's page 5, bottom right, less than a quarter of the page, no picture:

Detroit's police chief, three-fourths of the way through this article, "reiterated his concerns Monday that there has been an increase in violent crime in Detroit.... During the weekend, he said, there were 33 shooting incidents, in which 26 people were injured and 7 killed."

But Detroit is "mostly peaceful" one page back, with the Trump pic!  Maybe the protests have been, technically.  During the day.

Why was this uptick in violent crime not mentioned in the article on Trump considering sending Federal agents to Detroit?  (It's from the same USA Today news network, on the same day.)  Because they are asserting their own argument while they are reporting "news."

It should be said that conservative news sources use these same tactics too often, sadly.  I hate the uncomplimentary pictures of Democrats they constantly put up.  It's a cheap shot meant to induce us to ridicule people, instead of rationally oppose policies.

But newspapers like the one I've featured above do not identify as a liberal news source when they clearly are.  The conservative ones mostly tell you who they are.  The latter is more transparent.  The former hides its agenda.  Articles like these are thinly veiled arguments against our President.  We have publications that claim to be giving us straight news, when in actuality they are advocating (usually subtly to keep up the pretense) for liberal/progressive policies and candidates, and against conservative ones.

The State of Our President

It has been cliche for quite some time now to bemoan the evangelical Christian's mindless support of the Presidency of Donald Trump.  What hypocrisy to call for Clinton's impeachment, while turning a blind eye to Trump's infidelities!

There is of course some truth to the charge.  Trump historically has been (arguably) an admirable entrepreneur, but an amoral figure.  It's sad that any support of our president needs to be qualified with separating oneself from his immoral past.  I'll never forget the picture of Jerry Falwell, Jr. posing for a picture in Trump's office with a Playboy cover in the background.

This is what made the State of the Union speech so striking.  For the first hour I was mildly disappointed.  Our president said good and true things, but it was all oriented to money and jobs and our economy.  It reminded me of arguments I had with friends during the primaries when I was against him.  He might be fine as a fiscal conservative, I said, but I couldn't see him advocating for biblical morality in the public square.

I am gladly eating my words now.  So happy to be wrong.

The speech was well put together rhetorically.  Trump was restrained and mature given the current political climate against him.  He started with economic issues but he didn't stay there.

The wall and border he framed as a moral issue, rightly so.  His biggest blunder of the night was here, neglecting to qualify his position with the reality that many seeking entrance to our country are not nefarious folks.  But raising the issue of sex trafficking, and having present family of victims murdered by illegals, was rhetorically effective against the derision from his opponents who think he is just bigoted against brown people.

How do you speak against the fiscally insane policies of socialists like Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez and Kamala Harris, who are sitting in the room as you speak?  You start with the chaos those policies have wreaked on Venezuela.  Excellent.

And how do you work up to speaking against abortion to a room full of feminists?  Paid family leave and the evoking the experience of holding your new-born baby, that's how.  Trump outed the campaign against Virginia Governor Northam for what it really is: the Democrat party removing its own, when he spoke too plainly about what they really advocate regarding late-term abortion.

Now, is it weird to hear a philanderer and moral scoundrel speak to the nation about children in the mother's womb being made in the holy image of God?  Yes.  Should we work against him because of that awkwardness?  I don't think so.  It reminds me of Jesus' line to the Pharisees that the Gentiles, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the Kingdom of God before them.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't naively assume Trump has entered the Kingdom.  But he is singing some of the songs of the Kingdom of God.

By the most cynical political calculation, Trump is pandering to his conservative base and not really believing what he says regarding abortion.  Even assuming this is true, I'll take and support it over the far more tepid Republican alternatives we could have had, who likely would have cowered at the culture war onslaught that has gone on for the last few years, and said nothing in defense of the babies, or toned it down.  No.  We are letting "doctors" kill the babies, and taking advantage of vulnerable women.  It is demonic to convince women that they are gaining freedom and more choices for their lives by ending the life inside them.  We need a warrior for this truth in the Oval Office right now, not a prudent pragmatician.  It seems perhaps that our vice-President is convincing our president of the urgency of this issue.

Whatever Trump's real motives or personal standing before His Creator, I'm giving thanks today for his stand for the unborn and against socialism before a watching world.

A Quick Poltical Summary

1. The liberal believes people are basically decent and need a little help from the government to make life work.  Community and government are the primary saviors.
2. The secular conservative believes people are basically decent and don't need help from the government.  Their self-interested choices in a free market will make life work.  Free individual choice, work, and the market are the primary saviors.
3. The Christian liberal believes people are flawed, and need moral guidance from God through the church and the government.  Education is a primary savior.
4. The Christian conservative believes people are sinful and need saving from ourselves.  And often from the church and the government, too.  Jesus is the only real Savior.

Yes, I know this is simplistic.

Ben Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Jordan Peterson are in the second category, even though they talk about God sometimes.  As Christians we can glean some common grace wisdom from them, but should be very careful not to shape our Gospel message to their message.  Sometimes they are compatible messages; often they are not.

Standing for the Flag

I didn't care too much about the NFL kerfluffle over kneeling for the national anthem, until a conversation with a family member made me realize that high schools were following the trend, and school leadership was celebrating or endorsing it.

Call me out of touch for not knowing that, but yes, now I'm finally upset.

Of course, Kaepernick has started something, and he is a role model and will be followed by high schoolers and others in dissing the flag.  I note that originally he sat down on the bench, but now all the rage is to kneel.  Kneeling, you see, makes the whole thing seem nobler somehow.  But you are still refusing to stand out of respect for the symbol of our country.  You are saying you cannot respect our country, her flaws are so deep. 

Kneeling is an easy way to say something loud and strong, and to feel noble while doing it. 
But you are dishonoring our country.  Please stop.  Please stand.

Now, this disrespect is sadly something that Rush Limbaugh and ultra-conservative parents have been teaching their children for a long time.  I'll express my disagreement with those liberals so vehemently that my scorn and disrespect is obvious.  So when the kids grow up, they learn to disrespect a country they have disagreements with.  Hm.

Some believe players have a constitutional right to free speech in this way.  To force them to stand violates their first amendment rights.  This grossly misunderstands the first amendment.  When you are employed as a performer, you waive many free speech rights to do your job as the employer wishes.  Could Disney employees disrespect the flag while performing at Disneyworld?  If Disney allowed it, yes.  But should they?

The NFL and colleges and high schools are culture-shaping institutions that should promote respect for our country and her flag, while also giving some meaningful forum for expressing protest.  Schools for certain should not be promoting students dishonoring the flag.  A rule that any player who doesn't stand for the anthem will sit on the bench during the game would be very fitting.

This is why Mike Pence is also a contrasting role model to Kaepernick, and will also be followed.  This is why his walkout, leaving the game during the anthem when players knelt, was brilliant.  We should not give our support to forms of protest that disrespect and disrupt our country.  MLK's march on Washington was a planned and respectful event, and he exhorted all there to continue such respect.  Today's Antifa and black lives matter claim to be the heirs of such protest, but their actions show a night and day difference.

These institutions like the NFL and school administrations should expect a loss of support and revenue if they allow players to go on dissing the country that has made their significant wealth possible.  I have no problem with players exercising their free speech and finding a way publicly to ally with black lives matter or whatever the cause is.  But the NFL should not allow it during the national anthem.

As usual the media is severely biased, to the point of blatant advocacy for the players.
Al Sharpton compares Jerry Jones to a plantation owner, but Donald Trump gets accused of race-baiting?  Come on.

Finally, of course we should avoid idolizing our nation.  We don't want to say, "I side with my country, right or wrong."  Or, "I stand for the flag because my country is near-perfect and is on the right track."  We should be free to criticize our nation's policies and culture.  (If we never do, maybe idolatry is near.)  But just as older children can give their parents feedback, they should do so respectfully, and may never dishonor them.  Patriotism with proper priorities is pleasing to God.

Kneeling for the flag smacks of ingratitude at God's gift of a good land.
It takes the easy road to loud self-expression at the expense of honoring your country.

Vote Tomorrow

Just a quick note before the primary tomorrow.

God calls us to vote.
On one level, I understand the bumper sticker: "Don't vote.  It only encourages them."
But that is a joke looking to the vanity and ambition of politicians.  When our government asks for our voice into its governance, it is poor stewardship at the least to refuse.

Trump is not a legitimate candidate for a Christian.
He has a pro-abortion record, is arrogant, an adulterer, a big donor to Democrats and the Clintons, and has few specific proposals.  The list could go on and on.

Voters have a voice but are not sovereign.
Especially in election season we tend to believe the myth that all power in this country rests with the people.  "We the people," right?  At this stage in the campaign season, though, it becomes painfully obvious that the number of candidates determines a lot.  As long as Trump has 4 candidates to run against he will win.  In unity there is strength.  The choice given the people determines a lot.

Donors and candidates and polls are significant, but not sovereign.
Many tend to throw up their hands at this point in the race, being sick of it all, and assert with disgust that the big money and smoke-filled back rooms of the political parties decide it all, anyway.  So why pay attention - why vote?  I don't grant the premise.  Big money and maneuvering does affect a lot.  But don't forget Haman and Ahithophel and Judas and other movers and shakers who thought events were in their hands, when they are really in God's.

God is in control.
Jeremiah 18:6 - “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says Yahweh. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!"
This is true of every nation, as well as of the church of God.

Isaiah 40:23 -    He brings the princes to nothing; He makes the judges of the earth useless.

Earthly leaders are still needed
Asserting that God is in control is no excuse to walk away from politics.
The opinion headline in my local paper yesterday was "Trump is No Savior."
Some have called Rubio the savior of the Republican party.
Rubio's response?  There's only one savior: Jesus Christ.
Now, it is wrong to look for a savior in politics.  At the same time, if something is wrong with the plumbing, you call a plumber.  We see much wrong in our politics, so we need political leaders at the helm to fix it.  They are God's instrument and servant for doing justice in the nations.

So please, trust God with our nation, and go vote wisely.

Ted Cruz and Home-schooling

The tiff over Cruz's bill to give homeschoolers the opportunity to have an eduational savings account reveals some philosophical differences of emphasis among Christian homeschoolers.

American Vision (AV) opposes it, as the camel's nose in the tent of federal regulation and tyranny.

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) supports it, (check out their recent interview with Cruz here) as a way of giving home-schoolers the same benefits offered to public- or private-schoolers.

AV's view of home-schooling is motivated by keeping the government out of our lives absolutely and at all costs.  HSLDA's view is motivated by giving home-schoolers the same rights and privileges as anyone else in our political system.

Cruz says he wants no role for the federal government in education.  He'd abolish the Department as president.  Yet he supports this bill.  You can see Cruz as inconsistent in this if you want, but it's really incrementalism of the legit variety, in my book.  Politicians work on two different level at the same time: the long range goals driven by the values you hold, and the laws in place and how you can realistically get them changed.

This is an issue over which faithful Christians do not need to choose sides.  Our media these days trains us to pick sides and fight over every last thing, but there is no need here.  It's very dirty politics to use this bill to turn the heart of Cruz' base against him.  Of course, we'll all have a primary vote to cast, but to reject Cruz over this would be poor political prioritizing.

Some home-schoolers in my state use a religious exemption, entitling them to report virtually nothing to the state about their education of their children.  This is the American Vision mentality: we're home-schooling partly to keep the guvmint out of our family.  Others use a more standard approach and report some things annually.  This is more characteristic of the HSLDA folks.  Either option is legitimate, in my book.  The AV approach can too harshly lambast this latter group and Cruz for working in the public square for the benefit of home-schoolers.  HSLDA, on the other hand, can be too naive to the pitfalls involved with its pursuit of getting a place at the political table for home-schoolers.

Thoughts on Trump

An open letter to the GOP

This has gone on long enough.

Seeing Trump speak at Liberty University, compared to Jesus by its politically pandering president, was the last straw.  Trump actually said his book was the best book ever written, except for the Bible.  And no one boo-ed him.  He wasn’t run out of town on a rail.

I guess we’ve just gotten used to demagoguery and spectacle and bald-faced lies, exaggerations and braggadocio in our political discourse.  Trump is the logical outcome of talk radio's extreme rhetoric and straw-man arguments, on either side of the aisle.

But we have a country to run.  It’s a serious job.  Trump was entertaining for a while, but are we seriously considering this?  Just because he has enough money to buy an audience?

His moral convictions are non-existent.

His brash talk makes “the bombing starts in 5 minutes” look like child’s play.

Some folks are starting to reconcile themselves to the real possibility of Trump as the GOP candidate.  I never will.

This day has been coming for a while.

With our culture sliding farther from its Biblical anchor, the day was on its way when no major presidential contender supports Biblical values.  Trump pretends to, at Liberty, but its weak and a transparent pander.  It’s obvious he doesn’t believe what he’s saying, as he says it.  It would do Christians well to pause and consider, apart from the Trumpery, how do we lobby and vote when the major parties and polls refuse to advance candidates with biblical values?  I understand the argument to vote (in the hypothetical or future situation) for the pro-choice guy instead of the forced sterilization guy, but I'm not sure I buy it.  Does the Bible obligate us to cast a defensive vote for the “lesser of two evils,” if that candidate won’t do anything to act for the unborn and other biblical values?  The difference between Romney and Trump is stark.

In the past I have been very strong against voting third party, because it just throws support to the Democrat.  But in the case of Trump, at this point, I WILL “throw my vote away” rather than give it to the GOP.  If Trump is actually the nominee, I’m sure a decent third-party conservative candidate will emerge outside the GOP, if the rules allow it.  As Doug Wilson said, I think I'll vote for Donald Duck before Donald Trump.  The GOP should notice that wing of the base, and not just the big audiences and bank of cash Trump displays.

At this point I’m hoping for a Cruz-Fiorina ticket, or something like it.

Wake up, GOP rulers, and give us a serious candidate.

Don’t let money do all the talking.

One thing I’ve noticed.  The GOP usually has a hard time communicating a clear and winsome message in their national campaigns.  With Trump it’s even worse.  Almost makes me wonder if he’s doing his friend Hillary Clinton a favor, sucking all the oxygen out of the GOP’s room, into his narcissistic big head.  Jamming our communications so the other side has free reign.