Wayne Grudem has published a third post on Donald Trump:
It's easy to make fun of Grudem's careening views, but this is an example of a conscientious man struggling with a difficult choice. Grudem's article is very thorough, although it suffers from overconfidence in Trump's campaign promises. To begin with, Trump's campaign promises are a moving target. And he shows precious little commitment to his campaign promises.
The best argument for Trump goes like this:
i) Principle: if push comes to shove, a bad man who does good things is better than a good man who does bad things.
ii) We have two vile candidates. One of them (Hillary) will undoubtedly strive to do terrible things. The other (Trump) may do a few good things, or at least not consistently do so many bad things.
Put another way, Hillary is an ideologue in a way that Trump is not. The very fact that Trump has no considered political philosophy means he doesn't have an agenda in the way Hillary does.
iii) However, that slight advantage is potentially offset by the additional consideration that Trump warps the conservative movement. We already see many erstwhile conservatives bending their ideology to conform to Trump.
If Trump is elected, will there be a viable conservative movement to revert to after the dust settles? Will the GOP be a meaningful alternative to the Democrats? Or will we be stuck with two liberal parties? Will a Trump presidency further adulterate the GOP, and marginalize the conservative movement?
That's what makes it difficult to tally the pros and cons. Fact is, the future is unpredictable. And we don't know for sure if the alternatives would have turned out any better, because we can't run multiple timelines, compare them, then pick the best.
What about Trump's appointment of justices vs. Hitlery's? Could make a yuge difference.
ReplyDeleteTrump's willingness to attack down-ballot Republicans demonstrates that he doesn't really care about SCOTUS
DeleteWhy should his contempt for people who despise him prevent you from hindering Hillary to elect super-liberal, destructive justices? Is it really so important to make a point that you don't like Trump that you risk sending the US (and by implication the West) accelerating down a road of utter depravity?
DeleteKaffikjelen,
DeleteYou should rephrase your question to direct it at Trump. Ask him why his contempt for people like Paul Ryan prevent him from hindering Hillary to elect super-liberal, destructive justices? Is it really so important for Trump to make a point about his ego that he risk sending the US (and by implication the West) accelerating down a road of utter depravity?
The point in directing this question back towards Trump highlights the fact that if Trump loses it's his own fault. He will lose because he is a horrible candidate, despite all his talk of being a winner and the only who can "fix" America. In fact that ridiculous rhetoric exposes his nasty non-conservative underbelly. The #NeverTrump movement isn't big enough to cost Trump the election. In order to win in the general it's not enough to have the few principled conservatives who are #NeverTrump. You also need to appeal to a lot of moderates, independents. Trump has failed to do that, despite the rhetoric of his followers during the primaries claiming that Trump would actually turn some blue states red (ha!). But let's isolate your claim from all that and just consider this assertion:
If Trump is president he will nominate conservative Supreme Court Justices.
I have sympathies with someone who didn't support Trump during the primaries begrudgingly pulling the lever for him on that basis or on the basis that he will not accelerate the progress of the pro-abortionists. But to pretend as if it is *that* simple and, therefore, #NeverTrumpers are morally wrong to withhold voting for him is misguided. Here are some other scenarios that mitigate or rebut the idea that we should vote for Trump simply on the basis of the claim that if Trump is president he will give us a conservative SCOTUS:
1. Trump won't be president. At this point it looks like he has no viable path to victory, short of Hillary keeling over dead or some serious, serious WikiLeaks reveal in the next two weeks. If Trump has no viable path to victory then our vote doesn't accomplish what we intend (a conservative SCOTUS) and tarnishes the conservative movement for supporting a *complete* scumbag like Trump. We've already seen the reputations of evangelicals dive over their Trump support. We've already seen Democrats start their attempt to link Trump's character to Republicans' character.
part 2 -
Delete2. Trump will be president and will not nominate conservative Justices. This scenario has plausibility because Trump has jeopardized the House and Senate by attacking Republicans down-ballot and directing his followers to "punish" them in November. And keep in mind that he has directed this "punishment" towards people like Paul Ryan *who haven't even unendorsed Trump*! This is one demonstration of Trump's *legitimate* psychological issues in regards to ego. And it tells us that Trump could cause serious problems for conservatives and the nation aside from SCOTUS. That leads into the third possibility:
3. Trump will be president and will nominate conservative Justices, but will destroy the conservative movement. We already know that Trump isn't really a conservative and doesn't really hold to conservative positions for principled reasons. He dangles SCOTUS and abortion in front of evangelicals as though it's a carrot and if the carrot doesn't work he turns *very* nasty as we've seen with his remarks about Russell Moore.
If Trump wins amidst his disqualifying character and lack of conservative conviction simply on the basis of his appeal to White Nationalists and lip-service to being a conservative then conservativism is dead. Sure maybe Trump will throw us a bone and give us a conservative SCOTUS, but that will only last for a generation and after that there is no conservative movement (aside from being relegated to a 3rd party) that can win. On the other hand, if Trump loses we might lose SCOTUS for a generation but actually put a conservative in the WH in four years. Clinton already has very low favorability ratings and trust issues with the public. This puts a conservative Senate and House in good position to fight her if she wins (assuming Trump hasn't already killed our chances here).
While we can't say for sure what will happen in a Trump presidency (or a Hillary one) all of these scenarios have plausibility and we can look at specific cases which have already occurred to support each one. So, I'm sorry, but it's very naïve to think that it's as simple as casting my vote for Trump now so that I get a conservative SCOTUS--and that a conservative SCOTUS is the best possible outcome. And it's misguided to think that conservatives who don't vote for Trump are doing so simply "to make a point that [we] don't like Trump".
Trump scorning NeverTrumpers is just an expected reaction when they do their best to oppose him (and indirectly helping Hillary) even after he's been nominated. They'll never support him anyway, that's their entire mission.
DeleteAs I see it, there are two options for conservative voters:
1. Skip Trump.
The conservative movement will remain 'pure' and potentially in a few years get a fully-approved conservative into the White House. Seems a bit pie in the sky. (What plans do conservatives have to gain the required traction? Looking at the recent past, liberalism certainly seems to win more often. Even if Hillary is hated after four years, voters needn't resort to conservatism - Bernie Sanders types could come onto the scene.)
You'll risk Hillary as president, who will (inter alia) appoint degenerate justices and thereby put the nail in the coffin that is the Christian US. A generation down the line, when liberal justices have done their work, you can expect the hot button issues to have moved past those of today, there'll prob even be conservative approval of same-sex marriage. (I.e. it'll go the way of interracial marriage and become entirely vanilla.)
2. Vote for Trump.
The conservative movement might be 'tarnished'. Utopian dreams of a 'true conservative' White House may become more utopian still.
On the other hand, better justices than Hillary's will be appointed. Even if abortion isn't illegalized, it still seems a much better situation than a Supreme Court a la Hillary.
So it seems that conservative voters have a choice between a bad scenario and a worse scenario, but they nearly welcome the worse scenario simply because they have unrealistic hopes (i.e. a glorious future conservative revolution).
Voting Trump may go against some conservative ideals, but reality ought to be part of the political equation, alongside ideals. Waiting things out due to ideals removed from reality leads to inaction when one could easily prevent some greater evil from occurring.
Grudem basically bites the bullet and will be voting for Trump, but he doesn't praise him. It ought to be possible to help elect Trump and still keep a conservative movement going.
And a further Trump apologetic: this election has brought to light the utter corruption of the establishment. If Hillary, a representative of that establishment, comes to power, she'll probably not do anything to counter the corruption, on the contrary, she'll be poised to do her best to prevent Wikileaks-esque scandals from occurring. So a further corruption of the political process may be likely.
In the environment that would exist after a presidency such as that, is it really likely that people will then en masse vote for someone from the conservative establishment?
This seems to be a unique and historic election, and unless one is very optimistic about a conservative turn in the future, the choice is in my eyes very clear.
Kaffikjelen,
DeleteLike a typical Trumpkin, you ignore my points and pretend to offer a response by attacking a straw-man. For instance, I focused on Trump's scorning of people who are still endorsing him, but you *pretend* as though I'm grinding an axe with Trump because he's scorned #NeverTrump people.
You then create a straw-man about conservativism remaining "pure" as if this is what anyone thinks they will accomplish by withholding a vote for Trump. You pretend it's so "pie in the sky" that a conservative could gain traction, when it's obvious that conservatives like Rubio and virtually *any other candidate* could have easily trounced Hillary this election cycle.
You posit a false dilemma between a bad scenario and a worse scenario, ignoring that I laid out at least 3 scenarios--some involving Trump winning and things still turning out worse for conservatives.
Most Trumpkins aren't worth trying to have a conversation with, because they live inside their own head caricaturing what the #NeverTrump movement thinks and over simplifying the choice between Trump and Clinton.
Oh, nice, I get the label "Trumpkin". Frankly, I don't know whether that's supposed to condemn me or you.
DeleteIt's also disingenuous to portray my response as a deliberate strawman. All I know is Trump has criticized Republicans who oppose him, I haven't heard him attack his supporters. Who would you be referring to? (Even if he has, that doesn't make my response a deliberate strawman.)
"Conservatism must remain pure" is not a strawman if in fact that is what you seemed to suggest in your earlier comment ("tarnishes the conservative movement for supporting a *complete* scumbag like Trump").
You really think Rubio would destroy Clinton? He never was able to create the sort of movement that Trump has, and if he won the nomination, you can be sure there'd be plenty of stories put out to defame him. (Just look at a self-indicting recent interview where he opposes Wikileaks because it might as well have leaks from the GOP.)
I didn't posit a false dilemma. There really are only two options (viz. vote or don't), though there may be more possible future scenarios. The options (i.e. potential actions) aren't the same as scenarios. My 2 options weren't mean to compete with your 3 hypothetical scenarios. Why then do you conflate them and characterize me as dishonest?
As regards your scenarios, you think that the conservative movement ought not support Trump so that it may keep to its principles and hope for a future presidential victory. I answered that by pointing to its utopian nature: look how many cares about conservatism - liberalism has kept on winning for the past decades. (Also note that the GOP establishment is probably just as corrupt as the DNC.) Trump has created a movement that actually can challenge a lot of liberal nonsense.
So my assertion still stands: in effect, conservatives not voting Trump is based on a utopian vision that is removed from reality. No wonder why you keep losing.
"Oh, nice, I get the label "Trumpkin". Frankly, I don't know whether that's supposed to condemn me or you."
DeleteClearly yourself.
"It's also disingenuous to portray my response as a deliberate strawman."
I made a point about Trump attacking Republicans down-ballot who are still supporting him and you twisted that into a complaint about Trump attacking #NeverTrumpers. Either you're guilty of a deliberate straw-man or you lack basic reading comprehension skills. Take your pick.
"All I know is Trump has criticized Republicans who oppose him, I haven't heard him attack his supporters. Who would you be referring to? (Even if he has, that doesn't make my response a deliberate strawman.)"
People like Paul Ryan who have not withdrawn their endorsement from him. But this is beside the point, the fact that you try and excuse Trump's behavior on the basis that he was "attacked" (e.g., his unjustifiable comments were rightly condemned) shows you're a non-thinking Trumpkin.
""Conservatism must remain pure" is not a strawman if in fact that is what you seemed to suggest in your earlier comment ("tarnishes the conservative movement for supporting a *complete* scumbag like Trump")."
Not having the party's reputation tarnished by a legitimate sexist and someone who panders to racists and bigots (even if he isn't a racist or bigot himself) doesn't entail that I think the party must remain "pure" in some undefined sense. It just means that we shouldn't associate ourselves with someone who (1) isn't a conservative and (2) is of horrible moral character.
"You really think Rubio would destroy Clinton? He never was able to create the sort of movement that Trump has, and if he won the nomination, you can be sure there'd be plenty of stories put out to defame him. (Just look at a self-indicting recent interview where he opposes Wikileaks because it might as well have leaks from the GOP.)"
This is more evidence that you're a non-thinking Trumpkin. WikiLeaks showed that the democrats feared Rubio and wanted Trump because they had enough common sense, which you apparently lack, to understand that Rubio doesn't have the oppo gold that Trump has.
That you can only jump on Rubio's remark about not relying on WikiLeaks is rather pathetic. If that's the best you can do, then obviously Rubio could be trouncing Clinton right now.
"I didn't posit a false dilemma. There really are only two options (viz. vote or don't), though there may be more possible future scenarios."
Even *if* that was the false dilemma I was referring to (and it wasn't) it would still be a false dilemma: you can vote for a third party candidate like McMullin if he is on your ballot. When I talked about a false dilemma I was talking about your framing of the issues involved as being simply Trump & good SCOTUS vs Hillary & lose SCOTUS.
part 2 -
Delete"The options (i.e. potential actions) aren't the same as scenarios. My 2 options weren't mean to compete with your 3 hypothetical scenarios. Why then do you conflate them and characterize me as dishonest?"
It's dishonest for you to pretend like the relevant options here are "vote or don't" (for Trump). Even if you didn't mean for your options to compete with my 3 hypothetical scenarios, any reasonable person needs to consider scenarios like this when addressing your simplistic framing of the issue as Trump + good SCOTUS vs Hillary + bad SCOTUS.
"As regards your scenarios, you think that the conservative movement ought not support Trump so that it may keep to its principles and hope for a future presidential victory."
Nope, another caricature. I never framed it in terms of holding fast to principle. That's your attempt to try and still spin this as "pie in the sky" because you can't deal with the actual position. I framed it in terms of preserving a conservative movement. If you think having a conservative movement is "utopian" then you've really been brainwashed....
"Trump has created a movement that actually can challenge a lot of liberal nonsense."
Trump's only movement has been to tap into white nationalist sympathies and lead astray the economically naïve with talk about trade deficits. And let's not forget that this "movement" Trump created hasn't turned any blue states red, as his sheep were proclaiming would happen several months ago. Trump's only accomplishment thus far is to turn some red states purple. Wow .... and who was the utopian?
"So my assertion still stands: in effect, conservatives not voting Trump is based on a utopian vision that is removed from reality. No wonder why you keep losing."
Says the guy shilling for a candidate that is struggling to win UTAH.... Shows how the cult of personality gripped Trumpkins.
Using "Trumpkin" unironically - SAD!
DeleteOur discussion probably won't move beyond that level.
But let's look at the #facts:
The victor will be either Hillary or Trump. The set of plausible actions is therefore binary: vote for Trump or don't. The former entails helping create a conservative (certainly better than Hillary's) SCOTUS, the latter is letting an ultra-liberal SC come into being.
I get it: you dispute this as being simplistic, because refraining from voting Trump will at least "preserve" the conservative movement (which BTW is ever-changing).
And I dispute the relevance of the utopian dreams underlying that idea.
In other words, that is where the conflict lies.
And to that I say two things:
i) Your ideas of a potential conservative surge are unrealistic. I don't know too much about Rubio, but if he won the nomination, he probably wouldn't be stain free either. Maybe you object that he'd still be much better than Trump: at that point one must clarify where the line goes that determines whether Rubio would have more support vis a vis Clinton than Trump. But Rubio is just another establishment candidate, so it's not likely he'd inspire the same support as Trump - this election has revealed itself as a fight against the corrupt establishment. And even if Rubio would've beat Clinton, that train has left. At this point the relevant situation is the one four years from now, after Clinton or Trump has been president. Clinton is unlikely to create faith in the establishment. Trump will weaken it. So anyone from the conservative establishment seems to be even more unlikely to gain popularity than they've been for the past decades.
Politics needs to take into account the actual situation. So Trump may not represent a conservative after your own heart, but working with him might lead to some good, of which the most pertinent example is the SCOTUS. A generation from now, after a heavily liberal period, who knows what issues conservatives will care about? The here and now, when you have your shot, is when you should act, not in a hoped for future utopia. (Unless conservatives have this super secret plan that is sure to make things go their way (i.e. the opposite way things have gone in the recent past). Otherwise, how on earth would anything change for a movement that keeps losing to liberals?)
ii) Voting Trump is not going to destroy the conservative movement anyway. You can easily distance yourself from a lot of what he says and does but at the same time vote for him to help prevent a liberal Supreme Court according to the corrupt, baby-hating warmongerer that is Clinton.
"Trump's only movement has been to tap into white nationalist sympathies and lead astray the economically naïve with talk about trade deficits."
For starters, if Trump is president, he'll elect conservative Justices that would at least partly decelerate the leftward push of Western civilization. That's more than any conservative has done in recent memory.
Ironic that a conservative thinks labels as "sexist" and "bigoted" have any serious weight - next time remember to add "homophobic" and "islamophobic" to your vocabulary. And then you call me the sheep, amusing.
Obviously our political disagreements go much deeper. In the final analysis, I will say that maybe on your own views refraining from voting Trump might be justified (if the GOP establishment gave you that super secret memo of a guaranteed conservative resurgence). Though actively sabotaging for Trump, like many conservatives do, is a different matter.
A little long but I can go along with the general thesis. I think he trivialized the complexity of taxes as they relate to the economy by ignoring deficit reduction in his affirmation of cuts bring growth. Any liberal gets that a rise in GDP will in its own right increase tax revenue, which can be used for deficit reduction. But that ignores the 64 dollar question of how much so relative to forgoing higher tax rates on less GDP. Given that he co authored some book, maybe he might have at least noted that there's more to this than just cutting taxes.
ReplyDelete