Wayne Grudem and Michael Bird's dueling op-eds over Trump:
This was ignited by the CT op-ed, designed to mobilize opposition to Trump, but it backfired. Although the op-ed in itself has no influence, a number of high-level spokesmen used it as a convenient foil to register a conservative Catholic/evangelical alignment behind Trump's reelection.
As a reflexive Australian chauvinist who never misses a chance to take a swipe at the USA, Bird has no credibility. He's like Muslims who blame all their problems on the Jews. If his criticisms of American domestic and foreign policy were even-handed, he might have something worthwhile to contribute. But he's so predictable one-sided and question-begging that one tends to tune him out.
As for Grudem, he's rather gullible and unnecessarily defensive, but he's right about Trump's achievements thus far. I agree with Grudem's overall conclusion. That said, Grudem is a man without guile, so he's apt to project his goodwill onto others. Trump is cynical, worldly, devious, and conniving. Grudem is too trusting in the purity of Trump's motives. It's possible that the phone call involved abuse of power, although that sort of horse-trading among heads-of-state is routine. In any case, we're not living in ordinary political times. The stakes are dire. In general, the policies of the Trump administration have been surprisingly good, and the political opposition is hellbent on installing a secular totalitarian regime. There's a reason why support for Trump has solidified in conservative circles.
"As a reflexive Australian chauvinist who never misses a chance to take a swipe at the USA, Bird has no credibility."
ReplyDeleteBreathtaking quote! As an Australian I probably should be insulted. However it is harsh but fair.