Pages

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Edge cases

Lydia McGrew is one of the most sophisticated NeverTrumpers, so I'm going to examine some of her arguments. The point of this assessment is not about the 2016 election. Trump's campaign is probably doomed. However, the 2015 election illustrates issues and arguments that will be revisited. Therefore, it's important to sort and sift the good arguments from the bad arguments. Most of her comments are culled from this post:


Although one comment is culled from this post:


BTW, it's striking that a number of prominent conservatives are breaking late for Trump, at a time when his campaign seems to be a lost cause. The timing is a bit odd. Boarding a burning ship while the rats abandon the burning ship. But perhaps, to change metaphors, this is a Hail Mary Pass.


One basic oversight in Lydia's analysis is her myopic fixation on Trump. But a one-sided focus on Trump's many manifest disqualifications will fail to dissuade conservatives who consider voting for him inasmuch as their assessment involves a comparative analysis between two candidates. 

It tries to set women and men against each other, as if it's just or chiefly women who are disgusted. "If decent people are so outraged" wouldn't have started off nearly as well, would it? This furthers the idea that women just "don't understand" that "men are like this" (so it's really no big deal) and hence that women, but not men, are disgusted.

Depends on the speaker is. But conservative pundits bring up 50 Shades of Grey, not to set women against men or promote the notion that women just don't understand men. Just the opposite: that the country is full of trashy women as well as trashy men. 

And that, in turn, documents the duplicity of the outraged directed at Trump. Now, Trumpkins use that to excuse Trump. 

However, it's legitimate to point out that critics on the Left are blind hypocrites. 

It also makes the point that this is a problem for both sexes. This is one of the things that secular progressivism leads to. Slutty women as well as man-sluts or man-whores. 

It makes sweeping, negative, implicit generalizations about women. This, again, is standard manospheric practice. Women in general are sluts. Women in general are bad.

That's true of Alt-Right Trumpkins. However, you can't be a social commentator unless you generalize about groups of people. Social criticism isn't about isolated individuals, but patterns of social behavior. So her objection is self-defeating. Lydia is, herself, a social commentator. 

One thing Lydia conveniently fails to mention is that some of Trump's staunchest cheerleaders are…women! Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham, Peggy Noonan, and Sarah Palin. Even Phyllis Schlafly came under his spell. You can't pin it all on the male chauvinist pigs in the manosphere. You have morally blind women as well as morally blind men. 

I think conservatives by nature have up until now really wanted a president with good character. 

Well, all things being equal, it's preferable to have a president with good character as well as good policies. 

That's one reason why some of them can't handle the cognitive dissonance and either a) downplay Trump's bad character to justify supporting him or even b) go so far as to say that he has good character in order to justify supporting him.

True, I think part of the reason is that some voters feel the candidate they support is a reflection on them (which can be the case). That makes them defensive. 
A Facebook friend of a Facebook friend recently told me that she knows a lot of Christians who literally insist that Trump is "a godly man." The mind boggles, but what I think it shows is that the cynical idea of the "narrow technician President" still doesn't sit well with Americans, especially American conservatives. In their hearts they know that we are supposed to be able to respect the President…

Ideally. 

…and that he is, de facto, a role model. 

Just as star athletes are de facto role models. But that should be challenged, not accommodated. 

They know that his name will be in the history books. They know that if he's a slimeball and an embarrassment, this is a real matter of national shame. 

Depends on the available choices. 

They also know that as President he will have tremendous power which of course you wouldn't trust to a moral cretin.

What if both viable candidates are moral cretins? 
So they lie to themselves about his character.

Some Trump supporters are undoubtedly guilty of that. 
However, there's also a lot schizophrenia. In Trump's case, his bad character is so egregiously obvious that a lot more people, including conservatives, can't really deny it. 

True. 

But because conservatives are flogged by our two-party system and by the literally religious sense of duty that we have (bizarrely) told people that they have to vote in the Presidential election for one of the two major-party candidates, they feel they must harden their hearts, stifle all of their knowledge that character counts, and justify voting for the Republican candidate. It's an absolutely blatant partisanship: God will be angry at you and you will be responsible for all the evil that the Democrat does if you don't vote for the Republican. 

I have a more charitable interpretation. As Alexander Pruss points out:

There is, nonetheless, still a serious problem for the common method of cases as used in analytic moral philosophy. Even when a reliable process is properly functioning, its reliability and proper function only yield the expectation of correct results in normal cases. A process can be reliable and properly functioning and still quite unreliable in edge cases…This wouldn't matter much if ethical inquiry restricted itself to considering normal cases. But often ethical inquiry proceeds by thinking through hypothetical cases. These cases are carefully crafted to separate one relevant feature from others, and this crafting makes the cases abnormal. For instance, when arguing against utilitarianism, one considers such cases as that of the transplant doctor who is able to murder a patient and use her organs to save three others, and we carefully craft the case to rule out the normal utilitarian arguments against this action: nobody can find out about the murder, the doctor's moral sensibilities are not damaged by this, etc.


The choice between Trump, Hillary, or a third-party candidate presents conservatives with conflicting intuitions, because it's an edge case. 
It is in that context that they turn to the myth of the narrow technician President and to the further myth that a man like Trump can be in any degree trusted to do something effective even about the one or two policy things they are most concerned about.

That's not the right way to frame the issue. The issue, rather, is a choice between a candidate (Trump) who can't be trusted to do the right thing over against a candidate (Hillary) who can be trusted to do the wrong thing.
I saw someone yesterday refer to Trump's "promises" on a laundry list of things some of which he hasn't even _bothered_ to make promises about. (Religious liberty, for example.) So people are literally hallucinating promises from Trump so as to fix in their minds this false picture of his being bound to some kind of contract with them as "his base" to do what they want on certain crucial issues if elected even though he's a bad man.

True.

It's all an illusion.

No, it's not "all" an illusion. 

Now, given that that is what is meant, the intended sharp distinction between his "private life" and what he will "do" from his "public office" if elected really breaks down…It will bring justified embarrassment and reproach to the country. And it will make him vulnerable in various ways related even to matters such as national security. A man who cannot control his passions is hardly to be trusted with the nuclear football and with high security clearance!

i) If Lydia is alluding to Trump, I agree. However, the reason Trump is dangerous is not due to his roving eye, but because he's so rash, petty, and proudly uninformed. 

ii) When she says it will bring embarrassment and reproach to the country, I don't know her frame of reference. Europe and Great Britain have had philandering heads-of-state for centuries. And the same could be said for many other countries. 

iii) I thought she may be loathe to admit it, successful men can be promiscuous. Promiscuous men can lead very disciplined lives, in which they compartmentalize their sex life. They are able to be promiscuous and still be highly proficient at their job. 

iv) Life would be simpler if Lydia's correlation held true. But by the same token, life would be unlivable if her correlation held true. Although moral consistency is better than moral inconsistency, moral inconsistency is better than immoral consistency. In his common grace, God often causes unbelievers to be morally inconsistent rather than immorally consist for the survival of the elect. In a fallen world, you can't expect widespread moral consistency. 

I don't say that as a recommendation. And Trump is just a showman. But Lydia is overplaying her hand. 

For reasons I've given, I remain a NeverTrumper. I agree with Lydia's ultimate position, but not the reasons by which she arrives at her position. 


24 comments:

  1. If Clinton wins, we can be certain that the Left will continue raping and pillaging our nation. If Trump wins, there's a chance that real opposition to the Left will begin. I'll take a chance of good over the certainty of bad any day.

    And the lesser of two evils is still less evil, which is good, unless the difference is so small as not be worth the effort. I think it's worth the effort in this case.

    Most of Trump's partisans don't support him because he's a philanderer and an egomaniac. They support him because he attacks parts of liberalism. Important parts including, these days, abortion rights. That's an honorable reason to support him.

    It is said that if elected he probably wouldn't make good on his promises, either because he never meant them or because he would lack the power. But the value of a Trump presidency lies in the possibility of kindling real resistance to the Left. Conventional conservatives have failed spectacularly even to slow the pace of the leftist jihad, so Republican primary voters chose somebody else. Trump openly attacks the Clintons and parts of Leftism, so he is raising the morale of a lot of conservatism.

    Trump's public pledges to reduce immigration, "extremely" vet Moslem immigrants, negotiate better trade deals and so on create pressure on him at least to try to deliver. You can't just say "He's untrustworthy!" because he's probably in it for the glory, not the money or the power. And presidential glory is best gained by achieving something worthwhile that's lasting. The tens of millions of Trump voters would generate pressure on him at least to try to do the right thing.

    Most voters cannot support a candidate unless they believe he has virtue. Well, compared to Clinton, who hates traditional America, Trump has relative virtue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan wrote:
      ---
      If Clinton wins, we can be certain that the Left will continue raping and pillaging our nation. If Trump wins, there's a chance that real opposition to the Left will begin.
      ---

      I believe you are overlooking a far worse result of Trump winning. Trump is not a conservative by any stretch. But the reality is that the vast majority of Americans are not conservative by any stretch either. I'd even say that the vast majority of *Republicans* are not conservatives anymore.

      While I do not have any scientific numbers, my sense is that about 1/3 of Republicans are actually fully conservative (meaning both fiscally and socially conservative), while about 2/3s of Republicans are only fiscal conservatives. Because the makeup of the country is what it is, for Republicans to get enough votes, they need to have conservatives vote for the Republican ticket.

      Up until now, that has meant at least paying lip service to conservative ideals. But if Trump wins, that means that a huge chunk of *conservatives* must have voted for him.

      Now, put yourself in the shoes of the GOP establishment. They want to win elections. That's their primary concern. If conservatives vote in enough numbers to give Trump the victory, then the GOP knows they can nominate candidates that are as liberal as Trump is and *conservatives will still vote for that guy.*

      So it's a simple question. If you're the GOP, do you run someone who is more conservative (Cruz, Rubio, etc.) when you know that absolutely NO ONE outside of the Republican party would vote for them, or do you run someone who is more liberal (Giuliani, Kasich, etc.) who might pick off some of the less liberal Democrats *AND* who the conservatives will hold their nose and vote for too? Obviously, the second example will get you more votes.

      Thus, if conservatives vote for Trump, conservatives are simultaneously voting to *NEVER* have a conservative candidate ever again. The GOP has no incentive to stay true to conservatives. After all, if you would vote for Trump simply because he's got an R by his name, who *wouldn't* you vote for?

      So, far from taking "a chance of good over the certainty of bad" you are ensuring the doom of the nation by voting for Trump as a conservative.

      Yes, in a very real sense, the only chance conservatives have to come out of this election with any power moving forward is if we say, "I'm taking my ball and going home" for this election. Four years of Hillary is a drop in the bucket compared to a generation or two of the inability for ANY conservative to be voted into office.

      One final note. As the GOP moves further to the left and picks up more of the "middle" votes, conservatives become less necessary for them to win. Thus, ultimately, the GOP will drag you along until it gains enough liberal voters to jettison you completely. Have fun with that.

      Delete
    2. I agree that most Americans, and most Republicans, are not conservative in any sense that matters. Therefore I place no hope in the Republican Party, or at least the business-as-usual Republican Party.

      What is needed is something that could be described as counterrevolution: open resistance to liberalism. This will never come from the mainstream, Republican or otherwise.

      Although Trump is liberal on many matters, he expresses open resistance and hostility to certain liberal sacred cows, which is why the Left hates him in a visceral way they never expressed for previous Republican candidates. Not even "Bush derangement syndrome" comes lose to Trump hatred. They seem genuinely afraid that Trump could help trigger real counterrevolution.

      Trump, for all his faults, shows a combativeness that mainstream conservatism lacks. Yes, his combativeness is highly selective. Yes, he accepts many liberal premises. But he has some conservative virtues.

      Organized conservatism has been permanently defeated. Liberalism utterly rules, and it is destroying our nation. Our only chance (and it's a slim one) is something outside the proverbial box. Trump can help stimulate this.

      As to your argument that Trump will teach the GOP leadership to nominate liberals: I believe that Trump is sui generis. He's not popular because he's liberal, and standard-brand RINOs will continue mostly to lose. Trump is popular because the conservative positions he has taken are, for the most part, more important than the liberal positions he has endorsed openly or tacitly.

      Yes, a Trump presidency could be a disaster. In a Noo Yawk minute it could. But it could also be the start of something good. There do exist positive signs. And since the status quo is taking us to our doom, it's worth the gamble.

      Delete
    3. "...which is why the Left hates him in a visceral way they never expressed for previous Republican candidates."

      I'm sorry, did you pay no attention at all to what the Left did to savage Sarah "I can see Russia from my house!" Palin, Mitt "I had a dog in the dog carrier on the roof of my car" Romney, or Bushitler? Seriously?

      Delete
    4. You're also forgetting one key fact. The Left had to make up stuff to tarnish previous Republican candidates. All they have to do to discredit Trump is quote him accurately.

      Delete
    5. "Organized conservatism has been permanently defeated."

      It's really odd that Trump's supporters are so adamant about how dead conservativism is... you would think not even Jesus could resurrect it by the way they talk! This is delusional, given that Rubio had a legitimate chance of winning and will likely win his campaign again in Florida, given that Republicans won the senate and house and have a chance to hold onto it that is only threatened by.... TRUMP! How out of touch with reality could you be?

      "Trump is popular because the conservative positions he has taken are, for the most part, more important than the liberal positions he has endorsed openly or tacitly."

      That gives too much credit to the general populous. People love things like train wrecks, car crashes, fights, etc. One reason American Idol was so popular was because Simon Cowel was so brutal to the contestants. Another reason it was popular is because some of the contestants were a train wreck. Hillary Clinton is a train wreck to conservatives and Trump is brash. A lot of Republicans (the 2/3rds kind that Peter mentioned) love that.

      Americans have been cultivated into a snide, mocking culture where the best "argument" against a position is to laugh at it and the best proof that you've won a debate is to get the audience to laugh along with you. This is why shows like Daily Show and Colbert Report were huge successes and, even though they didn't claim to be real news shows, were the only source of news for many millennials.

      Trump isn't popular because of his "conservative" positions. In fact he has very few conservative positions and many liberals ones. If Trump's popularity could be explained by his conservative positions then you would have no way to explain why Cruz wasn't even more popular than Trump. Rather, Trump's popularity is due to him being brash (an ass, basically). He's a brash reality TV star and a plurality of Republicans have been dumb enough to elevate *that* above principle.

      Delete
    6. By the way, there is a real psychological phenomenon behind what Peter describes when he talks about the GOP dragging you along with it as it moves left. It's called the anchoring effect. When I ran an experiment on this in college it was related to how people's perception of weights could be changed. But the anchoring effect has been shown to have many broad applications. If I remember correctly, salesmen call it the "foot in the door" effect.

      Delete
    7. @ Peter Pike:

      It's a fact that the Left regards Trump as a greater threat than any of the persons you mentioned.

      @ Jonathan:

      Conservatism has failed utterly to defend against leftism. Mass immigration, legitimization of sexual deviancy, marginalization of Christianity, globalism, ... All these and many more have become institutionalized, and the mainstream right only tweaks things a bit, never reverses them. Trump sounds like he wants to fight the Left, which appeals to many people.

      Will a President Trump actually fight the Left? We don't know. But it's absurd to act as if you know for sure that he won't.

      Delete
    8. And Trump HAS articulated some genuinely conservative positions, speaking words a normal politician wouldn't be caught dead saying, but which need to be said, e.g., regarding the threats from Islam and mass immigration.

      Delete
    9. Alan,

      "It's a fact that the Left regards Trump as a greater threat than any of the persons you mentioned."

      I guess you missed the WikiLeaks email that showed Democrats admitting they regarded RUBIO a greater threat than Trump.

      "Conservatism has failed utterly to defend against leftism. Mass immigration, legitimization of sexual deviancy, marginalization of Christianity, globalism, ... All these and many more have become institutionalized, and the mainstream right only tweaks things a bit, never reverses them. Trump sounds like he wants to fight the Left, which appeals to many people."

      The fact that liberals have gained a lot of ground in these areas doesn't mean that Republicans have utterly failed. I already linked you to an NRO article that debunked that claim. But to say that conservatives have failed to gain x, y, and z and, therefore, we should support a candidate that clearly doesn't care about x and y and we doubt will do anything about z is just asinine.

      Again you are so fixated on Trump "fighting" the left. This gets back to what I pointed out just a minute ago: Trump isn't popular because of his conservativism but because people love things like car crashes, train wrecks, and fights. You love the fact that Trump is brash towards the left in a way that Cruz and Rubio weren't. But all that does in the long run is degrade the public discourse. And *at least* 50% of Trump's fighting spirit isn't something Christian conservatives should be enamored by or supporting.

      If Alan Roebuck or Donald Trump single-handedly managed to defeat the left I wouldn't be celebrating unless he had something good to replace it with. Stop focusing so much on your dislike for the left and instead focus on making a case for and developing conservative principles.

      Delete
    10. "And Trump HAS articulated some genuinely conservative positions, speaking words a normal politician wouldn't be caught dead saying, but which need to be said, e.g., regarding the threats from Islam and mass immigration."

      This is a good example of how Trump is such a horrible candidate. Yes, Trump is right to stand against illegal immigration. But then Trump risks political suicide on this same exact issue by attacking a judge on the basis of his Mexican heritage. He feeds the leftists the perfect headlines by speaking carelessly about Mexican "rapists". Then Trump starts sending mixed messages which suggest that he's going to adopt the same position that Rubio did during the primaries. This kind of behavior demonstrates that he just isn't qualified to be president. Any schmuck could exhibit these same qualities: say some good things, lack the tact to lead a divided nation, and the backbone to stick by what you say.

      Delete
    11. Alan said:
      ---
      It's a fact that the Left regards Trump as a greater threat than any of the persons you mentioned.
      ---

      Well, heck, if you say it, it must be so.

      Delete
    12. It's your domain, so I let you have the last word.

      Delete
  2. "They support him because he attacks parts of liberalism. Important parts including, these days, abortion rights. That's an honorable reason to support him."

    He also *promotes* liberalism. For instance he has supported universal health care, paid maternity leave, doesn't want to cut entitlements, and attacks free trade. And while he claims to be anti-abortion his reasoning on this issue has been incredibly weak and even incoherent (he has stated that his rationale for being pro-life is that a woman he knew was going to have an abortion once, decided not to, and the kid turned out great). And he has been very weak on religious liberty especially in regards to homosexual "rights".

    "But the value of a Trump presidency lies in the possibility of kindling real resistance to the Left."

    Resistance to the left only matters if you're replacing it with something good. If Trump's alternative to the left is secular nationalism that is indistinguishable from the left in terms of big government and entitlements then who cares? What we (should) want is *conservativism* and not just "Whatever isn't identified as 'the left'". We should stand *for* something and not just against the left.

    "But the value of a Trump presidency lies in the possibility of kindling real resistance to the Left. Conventional conservatives have failed spectacularly even to slow the pace of the leftist jihad, so Republican primary voters chose somebody else."

    It looks pathetic to promote Trump on the basis that conservatives have "failed spectacularly" amidst Trump's general election campaign failing spectacularly, given the best data we have available right now.

    "Trump openly attacks the Clintons and parts of Leftism, so he is raising the morale of a lot of conservatism."

    Rubio and Cruz also attacked Clinton and leftism. For the most part, Trump has only managed to raise the morale of white nationalists. Aside from that Trump has been more aggressive towards media bias, which Rubio and Cruz may have over-looked, but Trump has only done so as he's thrown his *own* credibility under the bus... so his attacks on the media only have purchase with his own choir.

    "Trump's public pledges to reduce immigration, "extremely" vet Moslem immigrants, negotiate better trade deals and so on create pressure on him at least to try to deliver."

    This could have been said about ANY Republican candidate for political office. We can therefore express confidence in ANY Republican congress or senate because they've made public pledges. I thought Trump supporters were supposed to be smart enough to see through that garbage?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 -

      "And presidential glory is best gained by achieving something worthwhile that's lasting."

      That assumes Trump is smart enough to identify the right means for achieving glory and then even tempered enough to consistently pursue the means through that end. But virtually everything we've seen from Trump in the past year (and his life record) give us serious reason to doubt both Trump's good judgment and Trump's strength of will to stick to the moral highroad in achieving his ends. Even his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, has been trying to create some distance between herself and Trump these last three or four weeks, so that when he goes down in flames he doesn't take her with him.

      "The tens of millions of Trump voters would generate pressure on him at least to try to do the right thing."

      All the evidence we have points in the exact opposite direction. Instead of conservatives generating pressure on Trump for him to ditch his very serious faults, they fall in line and become Trump apologists whilst making themselves look like asses (e.g., Huckabee, Hannity, Carson, etc.).

      "Most voters cannot support a candidate unless they believe he has virtue. Well, compared to Clinton, who hates traditional America, Trump has relative virtue."

      So virtue can be acquired simply by the presence of a worse person? This is the sort of ridiculous gymnastics Trump apologists go through that convince the NeverTrump people that Trump is the poison of conservativism. If you want to say that you can't stand Trump but you're willing to take your chances with him over Hillary then great. I can sympathize with you. But please don't sell us this "Trump has real virtue" BS, that's the kind of thing that fans the flames of the NeverTrump movement--conservatives tossing their good judgment aside simply because they hate the left more than they love the truth.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, that should be: "But please don't sell us this 'Trump has relative virtue"

      Furthermore, it's not clear to me that Clinton's faults outweigh Trump's. No doubt Clinton has done more damage to our national health, but Trump hasn't had any real opportunity to do damage to our national health the way Clinton has. Clinton has been in public office and, thus, her faults have effected public life. Up to this point Trump has just been a private citizen... although one who has **supported Clinton both morally and fiscally**.

      If Trump gets into public office (and that's a huge if at this point) who knows what damage his lack of virtues will result in. Trump really has hurt people and he really has taken advantage of people. About a decade ago I worked in construction and a guy I worked with moved down from NY where he did some construction. Trump's cheating people out of money came up in our casual conversation a decade ago. I still know the guy today and he says he won't vote for Trump because he's "genuinely evil" based on his experience. When he brings that into public office whose to say he won't be just as bad as Clinton?

      Delete
    3. P.S. Regarding "conservatives have failed spectacularly": http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435078/republicans-didnt-cave-obama

      Delete
    4. Clinton is committed to the Left and its Jihad. She is committed to raping and pillaging America. Trump, in contrast, seems to want to bed women and make money. America can survive the latter, but not the former.

      Delete
  3. Jonathan has a rather emotional series of responses, but if he were to read more closely he would see that I identified Trump as more likely than Clinton to result in a better outcome, but not with any certainty. I also said that he has "relative" virtue. Relative to Clinton.

    Consider, for example, the famous observation by C. C. Lewis:

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

    (End Quote)

    Mrs. Clinton would torment us endlessly for our own good whereas Mr. Trump, even if as bad as they say, would sometimes sleep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My response was no more emotional than your defense of Trump or your critique of Clinton.

      I read your response carefully and that you say Trump is better than Clinton does nothing to rebut the points I made (e.g. Trump has been a liberal all his life that has supported Clinton morally and financially and to this day he supports many liberal policies and shows that he has no real knowledge of the conservative principles you claim he has (re: abortion)).

      If you JUST wasn't to say that Trump is less awful than the woman he's donated to and defended until recently, fine. I get it. But then we don't need all the baloney about Trump being a winner, fighting leftists and rallying the last stand of conservatives as we steer him with a bit in his mouth.

      It's that so many conservatives feel as though they have to make up such garbage that is concerning. That's part of what's dangerous for conservatives about Trump.

      Delete
  4. In the last debate, Trump gave (albeit weakly) the correct answer when Clinton babbled on about the woman's "right to decide" when he said "It's wrong to rip the baby from its mother's womb." He publicly (in front of tens of millions of people) correctly identified the nature of abortion. That's worth something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's worth something. Not sure its worth a vote, especially given the broader context in which Trump was relatively recently just as pro-abortion as Clinton and now shows no solid grasp or familiarity with pro-life position (from a man who has written a book about how you have to lie to people).

      I have friends who have been pro-Trump since the primaries. Back then they downplayed Trump's weakness on abortion in comparison with others like Cruz and Rubio on the basis that Republicans never do anything about it anyway. Now they expect all Republicans to fall behind Trump *because* of his abortion stance?

      Delete
  5. At the risk of sounding fickle, I do want to make one last point:

    As society continues to balkanize under the onslaught of liberal multiculturalism, the basic distinction between friend and enemy becomes increasingly important in politics. Hilary is obviously an enemy of my people (white, Christian, conservative), whereas Trump seems
    not to be an enemy. He seems neutral at worst, and somewhat friendly at best. It is therefore obviously in my best interest to vote for him, especially since a real conservative (and none of the Republican candidates for president are real conservatives, with the possible
    exception of Carson, who had no chance) has no chance of being elected president for the foreseeable future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If 'your people' is identified as "white" and whatever then you've bought into the alt-right ethno heresy that is contrary to the gospel and you need to repent.

      Delete