My wife and I watched the Amazon Prime hagiography on George Washington, “The First American,” guided by the hand of Newt Gingrich, whose political views were imprinted on the show from start to finish. But it was well put-together and demonstrated both the strength of character of George Washington and the unique genius of the American system of government birthed by our founding fathers. Several things struck me from the show.
- George Washington put his entire heart and soul into the American Revolution, risking his life, his fortune – everything – for the vision of what would later be called the land of the free and the home of the brave.
- He showed extraordinary humility by giving up his commission at the end of the war. It would have been normal for a victorious general to assume the reigns of power and become the new king of America. It has happened all the time in history. The freedom-fighter becomes the oppressing despot. Washington went to Congress and resigned his commission to return to private life. No single act has done more to establish America as a republic than this.
- He could have been president for life and been referred to as “Your Highness.” He insisted on being called “Mr. President” and quitting after two terms. No subsequent president would serve more than two terms until Roosevelt and term limits were encoded in law after that.
In his Farewell Address, a 32-page handwritten letter he left after his second term in office, he broached many topics -geographical factionalism (he saw the North vs. South split coming) and the danger of betraying the constitution. It is amazing how current this 1796 document is. He devoted several pages to the danger of political parties, which were just forming in the nascent nation. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party had formed in opposition to the Federalist party spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton (Washington’s right-hand man). The money quote is from page 14.
However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
To put it simply, George Washington saw the rise of political parties as a threat to the American republic and he was right! I have always voted Republican, until the last election cycle (when I voted independent). My views on most issues align with the Republican platform. I am strongly pro-life and believe in our constitutional freedoms. But I have come to believe that the words of George Washington in his Farewell Address were a prophetic warning to America.
This is what I now believe.
The great danger in our land is not the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, it is the Republican Party AND the Democratic Party. Political parties are destroying the American system of government and the best way to preserve the Republic is to love America and reject the Elephant and the Donkey.
We are told this is impossible, that politics is binary and we have to choose one or the other. It’s A or B, R or D. One friend lamented that he was accused of voting for BOTH Trump and Clinton last time around (see, independents get TWO votes!). Trump supporters said that by voting independent he was actually voting for Hillary and Hillaryites said that by voting independent he was supporting Trump. As long as we surrender to the bullying of the parties, the parties will rule. But if enough Americans say no to that intimidation we can break the death grip of power the political parties hold on this nation and we can, perhaps, return to a time when America came first instead of political parties. I am not optimistic that will happen but I do not intend to participate in the corruption that has become the partisan political system in the USA.
Look at some of the things the Father of our Nation said about political parties.
1. They foster disagreement and division.
On page 11, Washington said,
…whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.
He believed that the Constitution united Americans as one and that politicians were using parties and regional differences to create divisions where none existed. Political parties are required to create division to get us to vote for them over the other party. Often there are simple, logical solutions to issues, but the parties posture to turn them into campaign ads and wedge issues. They create division instead of solutions.
And yes, Republicans do it as much as Democrats do it. The fact that I AGREE with the GOP more often doesn’t absolve them of guilt for issue-manipulation.
2. They lie about the other side.
Democrats and Republicans have real disagreements and differences, yes. But the fact is the Republicans lie about Democrats and the Dems lie about Reps. It’s how the game is played in Washington. Facebook is full of so-called news sources that make up junk that Christians and other conservatives dutifully pass on (I know the left does it too, but I’m on the right so that is what concerns me), regardless of the fact that there is absolutely no truth in them. Stories are made up from whole cloth or so twisted as to be unrecognizable, but because Obama or Hillary or Nancy P is blasted, we hit share without conscience. Because we need to beat THEM. Truth is irrelevant as long as it blasts the Dems.
Washington, on page 12, said this.
One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations.
Did he have prescience about the creation of the internet?
He warned us to protect ourselves from these misrepresentations. Lying about the other party seems to be part and parcel of the party spirit. Can we have an HONEST political party? Seems that honesty in politics requires leaving the political party system.
3. They divide those who should be united.
Today, we see the terrible result of this. Americans ought to be united by a political system that had incalculable genius, but generations of abuse by political parties has rendered people cynical, unbelieving, and negative toward the American system. Still, on page 12, we read,
They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection.
Political parties put the good of the party ahead of the good of the nation and the good of the people – examples of this are numerous. I could regale you with examples of the Democrats doing this and you would applaud, but the GOP’s intransigence on immigration has not been about solving an issue but about inflaming the base and getting out the vote. A
Any attempt at compassion, sensibility, or reason has been met with accusation and demagoguery by many conservatives. This is just one example.
4. They create an inability to hear and accept reasonable solutions.
We have not left George Washington’s twelfth page.
Will they not henceforth be deaf to those Advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their Brethren and connect them with Aliens?
Need I say that when he speaks of Aliens, he refers to foreign governmental powers? His point here is that political parties in their partisan bickerings tend to cause people to turn a deaf ear to sound and wise counsel and makes them susceptible to influence from forces hostile to the interests of the USA. In other words, by serving their own interests above those of the nation, political parties create a climate in which people become disinclined to listen to reason.
Why are people so quick to listen to fake news and pass along fiction? Why do we glom onto that which is nonsensical (like the idea of rounding up 11 million illegals and sending them back to their countries, separating children from parents, or sending young people who have never known anything but America since being brought over in their childhood back to countries where they are truly foreigners – there is much more than immigration at stake here but the GOP’s ridiculous and irrational stands on immigration are low-hanging fruit) and refuse to work toward rational solutions to real problems? Because winning elections is more important than solving problems.
5. They subvert the will of the people to the will of the party.
Remember Renee Elmers?
She was elected to the Congress from North Carolina as a family values, pro-life Republican. Then, when it looked like there was a genuine chance to pass a “partial birth abortion” bill in Congress, she sold out the pro-life cause for political gain in other areas. That has happened over and over again. I’ve been voting for Republicans in opposition to abortion for 40 years and they have been selling me out for party power for just about that long.
Yes, they have appointed a few good Supreme Court justices along the way – the only argument that anyone can make against my thesis that holds any weight as far as I am concerned. Other than a few good SCOTUS appointments, The GOP has been PLINO – pro-life in name only – as a party. Anti-abortion has been in the platform since Reagan and the Moral Majority but it has not been in the hearts of the leaders of the party and they sell us out for power at every chance.
On page 14, Washington made these statements:
They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force–to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests.
They (political parties) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
They replace the will of the nation with the will of the party and they allow unprincipled men to subvert the power of the people and usurp the reins of government. BOOM!
When political parties are the center of government, power over trumps principle. Winning always comes before doing the right thing. The will of the party and its success always comes ahead of the will of the people and its benefit.
6. They create a perverse form of despotism.
He makes an interesting argument on pages 17 and 18, which I will include in full so you can read his logic. It takes more than a snippet or two to follow his argument.
For Washington, the greatest political evil was despotism. He had every ability to become the King of America and acted intentionally to see that America did not replace one despot with another. He wanted a representative republic and he saw the power of political parties as the enemy of democracy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
He is saying that when parties alternate rule, one over the other, and when we begin to say things like, “you have to choose one or the other” it gradually leads to a form of despotism. People seek “security and repose” in the absolute power of the individual and of the faction – the political party – over that of the other faction. Republicans defeating Democrats or Democrats defeating Republicans becomes a form of alternating despotism.
Wise people, he enjoins on page 18, will discourage this and restrain it.
I have been a Republican all of my life. If I didn’t feel that the GOP had betrayed conservative values, family values, and decency, I’d probably still be one, so I am open to a charge of hypocrisy here. I am arguing from principle here but it took betrayal to make me see the light. I now believe that even a good political party is not good for America and America has no good political parties.
In Washington’s day, we didn’t divide into partisan cliques and insist that only binary choices existed. I don’t know exactly how we get from where we are to where we ought to be, but the political party system is a mess and the Democrats AND the Republicans are enemies of the America I want to see – a constitutional republic of the people, by the people, and for people.
I am as pro-life as I’ve ever been. I am a conservative through and through. It is my values – my belief in the Constitution of the United States and its principles – that has led me to this point. I may vote Republican if I believe a GOP candidate is worthy. I doubt I will ever vote for a Democrat – pro-death candidates don’t get my vote. I may vote Independent and I may choose to leave some slots blank if there are no worthy candidates.
Politics is personal. I make my decisions. I state them and try to persuade them that they are right. If you choose to remain a card-carrying Republican, I won’t judge you. If you are a card-carrying Democrat, sorry, I’ll probably judge you a little, but I understand that is your choice too. But I am becoming more convinced that both our parties are irretrievably corrupt that they do not have the best interest of the country at heart. They choose power and party over the good of the nation – both of them.
You may see things differently, but I’ve made my choice.
And please, I understand that we are citizens of heaven and it’s all about the Lordship of Jesus. We don’t really need “Jesus Jukes” here. This is a political post and it got long. I could write another one on the fact that we shouldn’t subvert our loyalty to the Kingdom to a political party – that is an even better argument. But this came from watching that video and reading Washington’s letter. I thought his warnings were prescient. Prophetic.
The link is in the article to the entire 32 page document. don’t let that scare you. 32 handwritten pages is more like a 5 page document typewritten.
I voted 3rd Party in 2016 not because my vote was going to change the electoral outcome here in Texas but because the ideals of the Republican Party (limited government, true social conservatism, and genuine belief in the principles of the Constitution) left me in 2016. It was liberating to vote my Biblical conscience and not worry about the outcome of an election.
The binary option is a fraud. Your vote is YOUR vote. Use it. Believe in its value. It is liberating.
FYI – I am a former college history and government professor. I am not naive about the electoral process or the Supreme Court issue. I simply just believe my vote has to be earned by the candidates and the letter after their name is not enough for me. Moral, Biblical principles are not for sale and the lesser of two evils is still evil.
That was my view. The ideals of the GOP left me. I am without a home anymore politically.
While true, show me one Democrat that is not anti-gun, anti-speech they don’t agree with, pro-social spending for liberal purposes, in favor of calling illegal immigration legal immigration, etc., etc., etc. I simply cannot vote for the policies of any Democrat because their views are different from mine. It is more than the political factions Washington warned against. It is a true difference in world view.
Oh, and third party candidates tend to be wing-nuts… people who walk around with tin-foil hats on… I can’t vote for them either.
This is a big part of the problem. We don’t listen to each other and we have no idea what other people actually think. There are many Dems who are not anti gun, humorously, Vermont is very Dem and very anti gun legislation of any kind. Stop listening to what opinion hacks on TV tell you and actually talk to people. They always surprise me!
Many people do “listen to each other” and they do have an “idea of what other people actually think.” Otherwise the entire world would live in total anarchy.
I cannot and will not vote for Democrats.
But I also cannot and will not vote for a lot of the Republicans out there
Can you vote for a member of the SABANATION? . . . and ROLL with the TIDE?
My convictions prevent that.
Infidel.
Exactly my thoughts.
Mark,
Well since you asked, I’ll answer. I’m a Democrat. I grew up shooting guns and have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I also fully support 1st Amendment rights and have never silenced anyone espousing different views than me in any of my interactions with them. Letting others speak is often helpful because (1) I might learn something and (2) the best way to expose pure foolishness is to the let fool speak without restraint. We differ on funding for social causes, but my opinion is that if the world relied upon the everyday American Church (across all denominations) for support, the homeless epidemic (to name just one issue) would be even greater than it is now. Yes, I know that some ministries support these things but not many.
Also, in anticipation of a few more straw-man arguments you might throw my way: I believe in fiscal responsibility (“conservatives waste just as much money in Congress as liberals by the way and only the party not currently in power ever complains about it), national service (I’m very proud of having been able to serve in the military), and protecting religious exercise. I also believe in individual agency but acknowledge living in a world where people can use government assistance to grow up as productive members of society. (When my father died, my newly widowed mother was very grateful for social security helping to fill the gap until she could get us on solid financial footing again. The church where we were members and where my father had faithfully served for most of his adult life didn’t even pretend to care about having struggling members in their congregation.) Lastly, I’m in agreement with you that 3rd party platforms tend to be disturbing. The Green Party’s platform in particular was disturbing to me this past election cycle.
Dave,
Although we’re on different sides ideologically (I cannot and never plan to ever vote Republican), I can empathize with the feeling of being left behind. The best way to describe my political ideology is just left of center. My party has been steadily moving further and further into fringe territory to where I am functionally a Dem in name only. (So I guess instead of RINO, I’m a DINO!) I feel foolish because I still dream of a nation where different sides will listen to one another, respectfully disagree in areas where agreement is not possible, and work together on addressing issues that we both agree are problems.
I am not interested in straw man arguments. I am simply stating the fact as I observe it. In my state, for example, every Democrat running for any office is a hard core anti-gun, pro-abortion, no limits on illegal immigration, etc. person. Straight up. Why would any person want to hitch their wagon to that? Every Democrat I personally know is that way. Are there a few evangelicals who are now torturing themselves to be Democrat because they hate Trump? It seems so. But by and large the Democrat party is vociferously anti-God… unless by “god” you mean a social justice “god.”
Did there use to be rational and reasonable and godly Democrats? Yes, but those days are long gone. Consider Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I can at least appreciate disagreeing with Trump. But why join a group that touts her, and Chris “America Was Never That Good” Cuomo, and on and on.
Me too Matt. Well, except that I have voted for a lot of Republicans over the years: both Bush’s twice each, Reagan, and I would have gladly voted for McCain had it not have been for Sarah Palin. And we owe a lot to Steny Hoyer, our Democratic Congressman here, even though I disagree with him on a lot of (most?) national issues.
John Fariss
There are many Democrats who are pro-2ed Amendment.
cb, what would you say the percentage of the Democrat party who is pro-2nd amendment? How many in LA, Chicago, Washington DC, NYC…
I have no idea what the percentage is. Your statement conveyed the idea that 100% of Democrats are against the 2ed Amendment. My contention is that is not accurate. Many Democrats are pro-2ed Amendment. I do know some. As a matter of fact, everyone where I live is pro-2ed Amendment, whether Democrat or Republican.
These are all matters of perspective. And there’s the inflammatory, biased language in every statement you make. You have your own definition of those terms. What do you mean by “anti-gun”? I know of no Democrat who fits that description, but being in favor of gun owner accountability and legislation that helps law enforcement get a handle on indiscriminate shooting is not being anti-gun. But I’m sure it is according to your definition. And that’s exactly what Washington was talking about. I know of no Democrat who is in favor of calling illegal immigration legal immigration either, not by a definition in context, but certainly, according to your definition, that’s it. Partisan politics redefines terms and twists the meaning.
Lee, you have never heard of anti-gun Democrats? Come on… I have heard chants of protestors chanting “No ICE, no wall, no US of A.” This was at the Washington DC counter protest. You think those people are registered Democrats? You bet. Have you listened to Alexandria Ocasia Cortez? Have you listened to Hillary’s VP Kane? My goodness man… And the media CONSTANTLY refers to illegal immigrants as plain immigrants. CONSTANTLY. The official ICE term is illegal alien by the way. Have you ever heard the phrase “no one is illegal.” That’s what I’m talking about.
That’s all persective. None of those perspectives is anything close to what you suggest it is, because your perspective is affected by right wing media sources that are more off base than the mainstream media. Being anti-wall is just practical and realistic, and avoiding spending taxpayer dollars on stupidity. Eliminating ICE doesn’t mean no enforcement of the law, it just means saving taxpayer dollars on a wasteful and ineffective agency. Was Rick Perry “anti-education” when he wanted to eliminate the Department of Education? I’m sure you don’t think so. The rhetoric is turned way up on this. The Obama administration was far more effective at curbing illegal immigration than the Bush administration during which most of those “dreamers” and their parents entered the country. If you make this partisan, Republicans lose the moral argument.
“Eliminating ICE doesn’t mean no enforcement of the law, it just means saving taxpayer dollars on a wasteful and ineffective agency. Was Rick Perry “anti-education” when he wanted to eliminate the Department of Education? ”
Wow. That’s a silly comparison.
Eliminating the department t of education and eliminating ICE are two different issues….it’s apples and rocket ships to compare those constitutionally related ideological differences.
ICE is a federal agency tasked with enforcing a federal responsibility enumerated to it in the constitution. Border security is necessarily linked with national defense and is a federal responsibility.
DOE is a federal agency without constitutional mandate – in fact it violates the plain reading of the 10th amendment.
Supporting its abolition and a return to state and local control of education is different on a plethora of levels to supporting the abolition of an agency that operates federally under constitutional mandate.
Should ICE be reformed? Downsized? Made more efficient – sure. But, calling for its abolition is a far cry from that. Congress can reform it anytime they want.
The recent phenomenon of Calling for ICE complete abolition largely began within the howls of those who oppose immigration law enforcement, while those calling for the abolition of the DOE aren’t arguing against education and never have – they’re arguing against federal intrusion and essential control of it – desiring more local control.
” I know of no Democrat who is in favor of calling illegal immigration legal immigration either. . . ” Yes, there are Democrats who are in favor of that.
cb- just because you call yourself a conservative Democrat does mean that conservatism has any power or position in the Democrat party. Name one national party leader that is even remotely conservative. You know as well as I do that the Democrat party is trending left… way left. To say other wise is simply dishonest.
I have not taken the time to officially leave the Republican party (laziness) but I am even more disgusted with my party now than when they first elected Trump. I started throwing some thoughts together yesterday. You may see it if it makes it past the SBCV censors ;).
But it is still less evil.
Trump being a Republican has tipped the scales of evil to the Republican side exponentially. That turned the moral majority into the Hypocritical Heretics.
By the way, the most hilarious part of the program, narrated by Gingrich and his 3rd wife Calista with whom he was having an affair during his second marriage, was Newt’s pronouncements about George Washington’s views on the importance of morality in the American government. He stood there and said all of that with a straight face and his head did not explode.
But that is the kind of thing I’ve grown tired of – a thrice-married philanderer declaiming on the importance of morality.
Interesting take. How do you feel about reading the writings of a murdering adulterer?
A repentant and punished murdering adulterer.
Bill, I presume you are assuming that Newt has not “been punished” and not repented? How do you know?
I don’t. When I do know, I’ll take his words seriously. He and Trump are of a kind, and I take that to be evidence to the contrary.
I’m afraid to ask. Who is the “murdering adulterer” you are referring to?
I assume he’s talking about King David
Yes to this post and yes to what Dr. Downey has written.
Yes, Debbie I concur! Yes Dave, I too have no party.
My take is a bit different:
If you are a Christian who believes government based solutions to economic problems you should be salt and light in the Democratic Party.
Likewise, if you are a Christian who believes getting government out of the way is the best solution to economic problems, you should be salt and light in the GOP.
Christians of both parties should be pro-life, against racism, and otherwise Biblical in our views.
Perhaps that is idealistic more than realistic but if Christians wholesale abandon both parties there will be no salt and light in either and our politics will be much worse.
My own take on the capitalism vs socialism bit is that we’ve taken two of the most corrupting influences known to man, money and political power, and we’re busy arguing over which one ought to be used to counter the problems caused by the other. Neither actually addresses dealing with the corruption inherent in man, they just assume that the problems are all caused by the opposition. Taking one side or the other still leaves the problem of corruption unaddressed.
That is not capitalism.
Capitalism is merely allowing people to have economic freedom. That is, to own property, and to engage in economic activity as they see fit,
People opposed to capitalism want to restrict economic freedom for some other goal, e.g. to honor the emperor or king, to protect certain well placed industries or people, to advance the party or national goals, to redistribute money and goods, etc.
The problem is that the Democrat Party is pro-abortion, pro-Christian persecution, and pro-sexual perversions, among other evils. That is how they identify. There are RINOs with the same bents, but we don’t embrace those positions as a party like the democrats do.
There are multiple Democrats across the heartland who are anti-abortion, pro 2A, and pro religious freedom. In fact, there have been several articles in main stream media over the last year that have profiled them and talked about their pushback against the DNC for moving to the extreme left at the national level.
I would advise doing very good research on Dem and GOP candidates before voting and not just assuming that a D automatically equates with what you are saying.
Here is one article that explores what I was talking about. Couldn’t find it earlier.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/11/terry-goodin-rural-democrats-indiana-216273
Our local Dem congressman spoke at a meeting I attended last week. He is liberal, but not as liberal as many.
He said that the Congress in the US has been becoming and now is like a Parliament. He says that most votes now are with the party. So most votes are along party lines.
The idea of a congressional Democrat getting elected and then going to Washington and voting against the national party is a myth.
Thier personal views aside – What will be the official platform of the party they caucus with?
Ten Ring At One Thousand Yards. It is becoming hard to distinguish a Republican from a Democrat when the smoke clears.
Great post Brother Dave! And even-greater points and principles within this post!!
I have to say that I am in complete agreement with you on all of this through and through.
(You even got me wanting to go see the movie on Amazon too!)
I, too, have grown discouraged concerning American politics. I am generally always saying that “We need more ‘Elected Officials’ and less ‘Politicians’.” Meaning that, we have seemingly lost our Statesmen and Stateswomen.
Our nation is one that is absolutely hung up within an evolutionary humanistic framework that is ever-bend toward existentialism.
Even in my home state of Georgia, the deck is stacked against anyone that even tries to run on an independent platform statewide or nationally. One could run in a local election here of some sort as a nonpartisan candidate, but the deck is completely if one aspires to a state office or national office.
Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree with you on this post for sure.
Thank you for lifting this up for us all and reminding us all of our sacred trust to carry the values of our beliefs throughout our lives, especially in voting and running for office.
I agree with you, Dave. I too have no political party to which I can contentiously belong. My conscience no longer allows it. It’s been a long time in coming – but 2016 sealed it.
Saying that though, I understand that other Christians consciences conviction are not the same place as mine… and I must remember that my conscience conviction regarding matters of politics makes me no better or more godly than them nor them better or more godly than I.
I struggled with that balance during my “separation” from the GOP during the campaign of 2016. I didn’t handle it well and became such a “convictional Trump hater” that I almost, and in some cases did, become angry and disgusted with fellow Christians who, also acting within thier conscience, voted for him. As I’ve admitted before that was wrong of me – as I said I did not handle it well.
Now that I have freed myself from the bondage to political party… I find myself more free to assess policies (and candidates) apart from disgust/frustration regarding political parties and/or thier leaders…And I do have equal frustration and disgust with leaders of both parties!
I am now free to vote my conscience and convictions apart from a letter behind a name and perhaps more importantly apart from my “allegiance” to that party “making” me feel that I have no choice but to vote for someone I don’t want to vote for.
Political issues… are necessarily matters of conscience and as Christians we must constantly be calibrating our personal conscience under the Lordship of Christ. We must also Grant grace to those whose conscience is in a different place than ours.
I recently read and recommend a wonderful resource regarding matters of conscience:
Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ
By: Andrew David Naselli, J.D. Crowley.
https://www.christianbook.com/conscience-what-train-loving-those-differ/andrew-naselli/9781433550744/pd/550744
(in a limited way it does deal with politics but it is much more broad than that)
I will hasten to say that even though that even though I am freed from the Republican Party… I cannot and will not vote for the vast majority, if not any, of the candidates from Democrat party because of my biblical worldview that informs my conscience – in addition to many of the same reasons I can no longer vote exclusively Republican (corruption, immorality, dishonesty and so on – you know the things Dave points out that our first president warned us of).
Importantly, NO third-party/independent/Democrat or Republican candidate will even get consideration for my vote if they are pro-choice and/or anti-traditional family. My conscience and ideological filters come into play after that… I realize this could mean write-ins at some point – I’m ok with that.
Peter Lillback’s “Sacred Fire” is a very good biography on Washington.
I have never joined a political party, so I guess, technically, that makes me an independent. For me, the ultimate question is who will control the power scene in D.C. for a specific election cycle. There will be winners and losers during that election cycle. Voting for “independents” that have no chance of impacting an election cycle seems ludicrous to me, since my family’s well-being hinges on who controls the legislature and who is appointing judges during a specific election cycle.
In my opinion, if you want to upset the apple-cart, you need to get involved in local and state elections. Not until state houses are overturned by “independents” will there be any chance of said Independents impacting national elections of U.S. Reps, U.S. Senators or the Presidency. To put it in baseball terms, I can want the Toledo Mud Hens to win the World Series all I want, but until they actually are in the Major Leagues they will never have a chance against the Cardinals or the Red Sox (or anyone else). I can hate the Teams representing the National and American League all I want, but the International League team is never going to win the World Series.
Unfortunately, Independents (and especially Libertarians) believe in only running for the Presidency. They delude themselves thinking that is the way the game should be played. They will never gain control at the National Level by attempting this and those voting for them throw their votes away (which is certainly their right as citizens).
Regardless of what you think of POTUS, he is an Independent. He is loathed by both Republicans and Democrats. You may not like him, but he, more than any President since Teddy Roosevelt has upset the normal practices of politics as usual. Nobody who ran for the Republican nomination would have gone against the grain of their party and Hillary certainly would have led us deeper into ruination. This does not mean he is without fault; he most certainly is not. However, he is not a politician, he is not beholding to either party, and the people realized this. I don’t know if it will earn him another term, but it certainly opened the eyes of many.
There will never be another Washington because of the very things he decried. We still should be celebrating Washington’s Birthday instead of President’s Day, because Washington is truly the One-of-a-Kind Commander-In-Chief. Nixon couldn’t handle that all the Presidents (himself especially) didn’t have a day they were recognized, so we no longer have Washington’s Birthday on the calendar. This is truly a shame and should be reversed. Not all President’s should be celebrated.
“He is loathed by both Republicans and Democrats.”
He is loathed because he is loathsome. He is everything Washington warned against. “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men”
Bill, as I said, you are free to loathe him. I loathe the entirety of those in D.C., both sides of the aisle, for the exact same reasons. They are ruthless, self-serving, power-mongers. And, as you said, they (the House and the Senate) are everything Washington warned against. You want change, start at the local and state level. D.C. is beyond repair.
You are probably right about that.
Good thoughts expressed here which are understandable. I would submit that Trump started a “third” party independent of Republicans and Democrats by using the Republican Party mantle to win a populist election. Trump is opposed by the “establishment” which is the Republican and Democrat Party who did not differ that much on policy. Here are the issues that Trump won on that both parties opposed him on
1. Securing the borders and enforcing our immigration laws. Stop illegal aliens from coming into the country. Both establishment parties oppose Trump on this.
2. Trade policies and terrible trade deals. NAFTA, TPP and all the unfair trade deals. A 500 billion trade in balance with China alone. Working class being taken for a ride.
3.National Defense and senseless foreign policy. Terrible decisions in the Middle East and military at a dangerous level of readiness.
4.Economy, regulations and taxes.
5. Supreme Court members.
There is more but these are the highlights. You can be what ever you want but in there was a clear choice between the status quo , Hillary, Jeb Bush, all the establishment picks and Trump, who was the third party guy who took over the Republicans from the insider.
To all the Never Trump , do not worry the establishment will get rid of him. In short , crude, in perfect and vain Trump won on the issues in spite of himself.
However the media and the establishment will get rid of Trump . Free speech and freedom of religion are now “debateable” issues. Again, Trump won on the issues not his terrible style or rhetoric .
Now, a new memo sent if anyone says something to upset the President they will be punished. He’s officially a dictator now. No advice given to him by his advisors must upset him?
I mean, I appreciate your hyperbole Debbie, but POTUS hasn’t signed anything into Law that the House and Senate haven’t put on his desk, which is almost nothing. If you’re upset with Executive Orders, Trump hasn’t gotten anywhere near the previous President’s Executive order total. As we have seen, it only takes a signature on a piece of paper by a New POTUS to get rid of, and essentially throw into the dustbin of history, Executive Orders of a Previous POTUS. Furthermore, if you don’t want Presidents to have Executive Order power, then call your Representative or Senator, because THEY granted POTUS that power.
By the way, we didn’t elect his advisors (or anything other President’s advisors). They select them on their own and they are free to agree or ignore them. We elected U.S. Reps and Senators to advise and send legislation to the President. They haven’t done diddly in the last two years.
He’s “officially a dictator”? Really? How so?
I’m not a trump fan at all – but come on Debbie…..
Do you guys listen/read the news?
BTW you do know that the senate adopted a resolution unanimously that reads the news is not the enemy of the people.
Yeah, Well the senate would say the same thing about themselves, Debbie Kaufman. I think they are all enemies of the people.
CB: Read my statement below to Dave C. This conversation and statements like yours and others here just validates Dave M’s post and is a reason I left the Republican party. It seems it is getting tin foil hatted in here.
I think the one word in your statement, Debbie, that betrayed you was “officially.” He may see himself as a dictator and be trying to become one – that is a fair argument. I think the trend has been toward a more dictatorial presidency for several administrations – one I’d like to reverse.
But he is not “OFFICIALLY” a dictator. Not yet.
Unofficially? 🙂
Debbie, then he joins the list of the recent “dictators” Dave mentioned. As I said, this President is nowhere close to the number of Executive Orders (what you describe as dictatorial power) of the past President. By the way, the previous “dictator” has refused to step aside as every other past President has, actually giving opinion on your favorite “current dictator”. He would retake the Oval Office tomorrow, if he could.
Again, call your U.S. Rep and Senators, because they are the real problem. They don’t have to allow the President to have these so-called “dictatorial” powers. They are the enablers! They are the ones (both parties) who want to keep the status quo! They are the power mongers! They are the ones who campaign and then completely do the opposite once elected!
Executive orders, revoking security clearances, pressuring with the use of pardons, Trump passed Obama on “dictatorial” measures” in his first month of office. But executive orders, the power to revoke security clearances, threaten the judicial process with pardons, and the like, all of which Trump has used far more frequently than any of his predecessors, can’t be taken away by the Congress, because they are constitutionally granted to the executive branch. Separation of powers and all that, those are tools that conservatives have championed to a far greater extent than anyone else.
Debbie Kaufman,
When you cook a turkey do you put tin foil over it and cook it in the oven or do you deep fry it?
Debbie, we do not read the news . We read the New York Times and WAPO and we watch CNN and MSNBC.
Steve: That is a silly and uneducated reply. I trust them as news.
Debbie: “I trust them as news”
That explains a lot. 😉
If you’re suggesting that the presidents revocation of John Brennan’s security Clarence is dictatorial… Then I would need to ask you if you understand what exactly is going on?
John Brennan works for CNN and talks every single day multiple times a day about data and information that he only has access to because he’s got that clearance…
This is an absolute no brainer. There are others who should not have security clearances either – I hope they soon lose theirs too… And before you say it I would agree with a statement that in normal circumstances – Donald Trump should not have a security Clearance …. except for the fact that he has been duly elected as president of the United States and therefore automatically and necessarily has one… John Brennan no longer works for the United States government/intelligence agency and has no automatic or constitutional right to hold a clearance. He has clearly and repeatedly betrayed the privilege and lost it.
Tarheel Dave, Be careful, you are expressing common sense opinion based on facts. This is not to be tolerated in some areas now as we need a safe zone away from reality. Seriously John Brennan , Clapper and Hayden all violated the terms of their security clearance with their public comments. In my opinion Brennan and Clapper were very incompetent in their jobs and deserve no audience. However that is up to the public to discern not me as I am not the King unless people want me to be.
Dave C: I think you need to know who is allowed security clearance and why. If you knew this you would not have written in your comment what you have. Both you and Steve D. have not a clue. You have completely rewritten the truth.
Good grief Dave C: Yes, I trust the news. Yes, I am glad the Senate passed the resolution they passed. Yes I understand what is going on and I think your statement is well……ridiculous.
Dave, I don’t think that’s true. Just holding a security clearance does not mean you are able to access all information that falls within that clearance. It doesn’t work that way. He’s not in a job that gives him access to that information. If Brennan was divulging classified information, he would be under arrest. This was simply a petulant move by a small insecure bully. It is his right, but that doesn’t make it right. Why does Michael Flynn still have a security clearance? This is Trump taking a shot at his enemies.
I will disagree with some of the commentary I’ve seen. This is not a first amendment issue. Trump may be hoping this will shut some of his critics up, but revoking their clearance does not forbid them from speaking freely.
Besides, Trump told us why he made this move. He thinks Brennan initiatedthe Mueller investigation.
Right – he can still say what he wants – that’s the point I’m making – dictators shut down political opponents by killing or falsely imprisioning them – this has not happened here –
The point is he won’t be able to tap into people still in the job who might want (and are) giving him information he can then twist and share on CNN – Not acting as an intelligence officer but instead simply as a pundit with a clear political agenda…in other words Trump is making it harder for Brennan to get info – or pretend to have inside info when pontificating as a political CNN pundit…
It’s not so much about him being able to walk into the CIA and get whatever information he wants because he has a security clearance (which I never contended)… It’s about anyone within the department who may want to leak information or discuss information with him having the legal ability to do so while he has a clearance… Taking away his clearance will hopefully shut down people from within talking to him without taking serious risk – Because this will make that illegal.
What has Brennan said that violates his security clearance? I would love to see a side by side comparison of the life and contribution of people like Brennan, Comey, Mueller, etc put up against the life of Trump.
Allow me to help. I have a military clearance. 1. Even with said clearance, I can only access something related to my duties. I have to possess a reason to look at something. There’s not a secret google search that I could just look up for fun. 2. After I left the military, and after every government employee with a clearance leaves office, that clearance will expire. The highest clearances have a very short lifespan and anyone holding them had to undergo a new background check to keep it. You need a sponsor (government, military or contractor who sponsors you to reapply). Bottom Line: once they left office, Brennan, Clapper or anyone else would have to request anything sensitive directly from the government which would be reviewed by a list of people a mile long and barring contract work, they’re clearances will all end regardless.
So you don’t trust journalists that are bound by codes of ethics and held accountable by libel laws?
Exactly where do you get your news from Mr. Cline?
The NYT, WaPo, and the WSJ are doing the best journalism in America right now. You may not always agree with what they dig up against your favored people, but at least their articles are sourced and documented.
Cable news is bad, but of the big 3 I will take CNN for the best attempt at balance over Fox and MSNBC.
Let’s have a little intellectual honesty here.
Ryan Abernathy, you seriously think that the press is honest, ethical, and professional. as demonstrated by the last 18 years (just as a sample)? Bush was the evil man who invaded Iraq to make a buck and because Sadam attacked his dad. Obama was angelic in his perfection and could do no wrong. IRS… no problem sending them out to do his bidding. Just where was he when the consulate in Libya was being overrun… no stories there. Nothing to see.
Hillary Clinton was a new Joan de Arc who would propel women into the 21st century. She did nothing wrong. Server? What server… Collapsing and fainting all over the place… no story here. On and on. And Trump is Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin all rolled into one. You call that balanced journalism? Seriously?
And I’m not even touching the biased reporting over the economy (horrible when a R is in office, spectacular when a D is), #metoo, BLM, socialism is great, etc., etc., etc.
The media is not bound by any ethics except whatever they determined to be ethical… And are exempt from the vast majority of libel laws… So yeah.
How many news journalists do you know? Personally? Have you talked to for any length of time?
As far as being exempt from libel laws, I think you need to do a fair amount of research into that claim. You would have difficulty proving that statement.
No journalist is perfect, but as the hysterical Mark Smith (might want to loosen up the tinfoil there Mark. Your Alex Jones is showing) demonstrates, the President’s assault on the Fourth Estate is working. And we are all poorer for that reality.
I guess next you’re going to tell me that Jim Acosta is some bastion of virtue, integrity and “real journalism“?
Not surprised you don’t like Acosta since he won’t stop holding Trump’s feet to the fire. That’s what journalists do Dave. They aren’t pawns for political leaders. They are their accountability. And I applaud Acosta for his refusal to let Stephen Miller get away with painting xenophobia and racism as good policy.
I do think it is funny that you went to the CNN guy when I said above that cable news is worse for bias, and mentioned CNN as well as Fox and MSNBC. What is your commentary on David Frum, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Emma Green, John Wagner, Michael Wear, Michael Gerson, Ross Douthat? Do you even know who any of those people are? Have you read what they have written?
It’s no wonder that you like Acosta… He, like you, apparently loves to ride high horses, be snotty and look down his nose with his arrogant self proclaimed “better than you attitude” with everyone who doesn’t see things his way…
By the way that bastion of integrity that you mention reporters are not supposed to be the story… Ethical journalists are not supposed to espouse agenda – and yet he and those you mention have….I do not consider Laura Ingraam, Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson to be real journalists – They are opinion talking heads… And that is the exact same category that I place Jim Acosta and so many of the “main stream” media folk – Acosta and many of the “journalists” in the press room are no less opinionated in their coverage than they – but at least everyone knows those Fox People to be simply opinionated talking heads… Jim Acosta and so many others ***pretend*** to be independent journalists.
Yes I know who those people are….I record and watch almost all the Sunday morning press shows – actually, are used to llikr Meet the Press more than I do now … When they had a real journalist… Who by the way was closer to your views than mine as he was a liberal… Tim Russert – he at least tried to be somewhat impartial in his coverage unlike the clowns on the cable and network news now.
? thanks for not answering my question and simply stooping to insulting me personally. Lol.
Enjoy your news Dave.
Now you’re playing a victim? Wow
And I did answer your questions. If you think I haven’t – I might suggest that you do some reading comprehension exercises.
Ryan: You asked for my commentary on specific individuals – not sure why….but here goes…guess this what you mean by my allegedly ignoring you….I spoke more generally in previous replies.
David Frum: As a former Washington political insider himself – he is part of the anti and now Trump media and has been since way before anyone knew about the allegations of collusion. That said, I have found agreement with him on occasion. He is an opinion writer. I see a distinction between opinion writers and what I expect from so called impartial fact presenting journalists. I believe he is a columnist for the Atlantic a publication that has often shown definite left wing bias…
Interjection here: (I have no issue with being #nevertrump as I was one long before there was a hashtag or a “movement” – I was never-trump before he even rode down that escalator and announced – I told one of our church secretaries at the church I was serving at way back before he announced (only rumored) as a candidate that I would never vote for him no matter what -s he asked even if he runs against Hillary – I said even then….she disagreed, sadly.)
Sarah Pulliam Bailey: Post writer… Although I first came across here years ago and discovered that she is a bit of a wordily feminist who once had a blog called her.meneutics where she and Rachel Held Evans and other bible denying liberals partnered up – clearly I differ with her on numerous political and theological positions. That said she did a good job on the PP reporting, IMO.
Emma Green: Not sure I have heard of her?? Maybe I have read some stuff by her and not connecting it off the top of my head
John Wagner: Used to be with the newspaper in Raleigh…having grown up in NC I can tell you that his liberal leanings and bias are well known here.
Michael Wear: A friend has suggested that I read his book on Obama…but I have not done so yet.
Michael Gerson: He has been a staple on “Face the nation” (remember I told you I record and watch the Sunday AM shows with regularity). I find agreement with him on occasion – but find him to be rather in the “establishment republican” mold.
Ross Douthat:: He is with the NY Times so I doubt I have read anything by him – I do not read that publication.
There are two different articles in the news. One is called journalism or the reporting of facts. The other is editorials which are opinion pieces. It used to be, as far as I know, that they were kept separate. News and Opinion. But in the last, I dont know 15 years, news stories contain opinion and thus bias masquerading as news. Both sides do it now. But more than ever since Obama was the president. And greatly now that Trumo is. Thus I put little stock in what the MSM has to say. Their biases continue to show up in the news, on both sides.
Its like a preacher mixing in his opinion whlie giving his sermon. Where does his opinion stop and the truth of God’s Word begin? For those that dont know the Word that well, they take it all as truth. And that is whats happening, it seems, to a lot of people. They have their right conservative preachers or their left liberal preachers and whatever is said is political gospel.
[edited for typos]
Another case in point. 5 major news outlets reported that ICE arrested an illegal who was taking his pregnant wife to the hospital to give birth but failed to mention that he was wanted for murder. It was passed of as news but was really editorializing since it left off pertinent facts due to bias against ICE.
I just read the CNN account and it says he was wanted on a homicide charge.
They weren’t reporting it that way At first.
They and many other outlets automatically ran with the anti trump angle – that’s Mike’s (valid) point.
I think Fox News is all but useless. People like Hannity and Pirro and the Fox n Friends group are so in the tank for Trump they are willing to overlook all wrongdoing. Fox is even rooting for Paul Manafort just because it will make Trump look bad if he is convicted. They would sell us out to the Russians in a heartbeat if Trump asked them to. There are a few bright spots like Chris Wallace, Shepard Smith and Neil Cavuto
You do realize the difference between Hannity and Chris Wallace don’t you? Lol. Everyone should. Hannity is opinion – Wallace is a newsman.
Please tell me… Who on CNN even comes close to Chris Wallace? Seriously!?
Of course the editorial people on Fox are in the tank for trump… That has been acknowledged time and time again… there are real news people on FOX though….
What you guys refuse to acknowledge is that *everyone* at CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, and CBS are all in the tank for anything and everything anti-trump.
As I said I did not vote for Trump and I will not vote for Trump… But lets just admit the truth that Donald Trump could walk accross the Potomac tomorrow… FOXandFreinds would lead with: “Trump demonstrates again his deity” ….. While everyone at CNN, MSNBC, and the big Three will lead their broadcasts with “breaking – : Trump cannot swim and is deflecting from Russia story with feat”
The anti Trump media is just as useless as the sycophant Trump media.
The difference is more than that. The bigger difference is that Wallace has integrity.
Ryan Abernathy, #dodgetoavoidtruthandlogic.
I get my news from the same places you get yours most likely… But I don’t swallow it hook line and sinker just because they said it.
I watch FOXNews (along with the others) for balance… I know it’s biased… Everyone knows its biased to the right… All of the other outlets are biased to the left… CNN and MSNBC are in the tank for the Democrat party just us fox is in the tank for the Republican Party… Therefore, Fox provides balance to *ALL* the others and the intellectually honest person does not take any of them being ethical are factually true in every case… same with print and Internet media… There are left and there are right… The intellectually honest person seeks to delve into and discern as best they can not trusting either to be completely forthright.
So yeah let’s talk about intellectual honesty!
Debbie, my reply use to be called a joke. I trust CNN to do 55 minutes an hour of anti Trump reporting and they never let me down. Spoiler alert, that is a joke also but remember good humor has a ring of truth to it. I trust MSNBC to ignore any positive news coming out of the White House, wish that was a joke. I am joking , try it, it is fun. I use to laugh when all the comedians made fun of President Obama but now I wish they had not as they are picking on Trump, spoiler, another joke.
Trump is not a dictator. He loves dictators. He wants to be a dictator, but our system, even with a bevy of sycophantic toadies around him, won’t allow it. He’ll go as far towards dictatorship as he can get away with, but he’ll come up short.
Bill Mac – just like Obama did. GW Bush favored a very powerful executive – president’s throughout history have pushed the limits….
But you’re right our system is set up to not allow such… Case in point the numerous times that the Supreme Court struck down Barack Obama’s attempts at unconstitutional action 7-2, 6-3, even 9-0 …
Thank you, SCOTUS.
Bill Mac: This is true. This is where I am thankful for our system. And our checks and balances.
Well Debbie – that’s pretty close to backtracking you’re utterly completely ridiculous statement that Trump is “officially a dictator”. Perhaps you’ll actually get there.
As Bill pointed out it is completely within the power and purview constitutionally of the president of the United States to revoke security clearance as he and his staff see fit. We can debate and disagree wether not it was justified or if we like it or not… But whether or not he CAN do it within our system and not be dictatorial is not really up for debate. And, It’s clearly not an attack on the first amendment Or any other of John Brennan’s civil rights.
Words mean things, Debbie… This whole little discourse is about my calling out your hyperbolic and inacccurate rhetoric – Just admit that’s what it was and let’s move on.
Dave C: What the hay????? Bill pointed out what??? Gaslighting doesn’t work on me Dave C. And please don’t tell me again how you do not support Trump. For your viewing pleasure:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/revoke-my-security-clearance-too-mr-president/2018/08/16/8b149b02-a178-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.c2f99e5d2262
Let’s see:
Bill said in response to your ridiculous hyperbole that Trump is “officially a dictator.”
“Trump is not a dictator. He loves dictators. He wants to be a dictator, but our system, even with a bevy of sycophantic toadies around him, won’t allow it. He’ll go as far towards dictatorship as he can get away with, but he’ll come up short.”
To which you said; “Bill Mac: This is true. This is where I am thankful for our system. And our checks and balances.”
Not gaslighting…..it is a fact that Bill, Dave Miller, myself (all of whom are not trump supporters) have offered a corrective to you on this – but who is actually surprised that you have come close but refused to accept it… No one, that’s who.
One does not have to be a Trump supporter to seek to be honest in rhetoric.
I did not vote for him in 2016 – I will not vote for him in 2020 – But even so I still try to be honest about him… I even said in a comment in this thread (somewhere) that under normal circumstances Donald Trump should not have a clearance himself… But we’re not in normal circumstances he is the duly elected president of the United States.
Here is what those of us who do not support him are left with either we can become a habitual haters/continual haters and become consumed with that hatred … Or we can celebrate the things we can celebrate and condemn the things we must condemn – letting each of us follow and calibrate our own consciences Under the Lordship of Christ.
Look, All I’m asking you to do is to backtrack your hyperbolic rhetoric and admit that’s what it was and move on… Donald Trump is not a dictator… He is a lot of bad, sad, and even disgusting things – but he’s not a dictator.
Dave Cline: I will concede that he is not “officially” a dictator. Thankfully our forefathers saw this could easily happen. And I will concede that Trump is not the only administration to be a dictator wannabe.
See, it wasn’t that hard, now was it?
🙂
Dave C: Why are you rejoicing?
I have quit sermon prep for Sunday. Surely we just witness the final sign before the Second Coming.
It’s hard to say that Trump won a “populist” election when 56% of the voters supported someone else and his main Democratic opponent became the second highest vote getter in the history of free world elections. Populism of this kind has been around for a long time, it just never had the money to buy an election before.
#iInterestingFact
Bill Clinton was and still is considered a populist president and never himself won a majority of votes cast in either of his Presidential elections.
” We still should be celebrating Washington’s Birthday instead of President’s Day, because Washington is truly the One-of-a-Kind Commander-In-Chief. ”
Not specifically related directly to this discussion, but I agree.
Actually, isn’t that because several early Presidents have birthdays around the same time?
For me this is the money quote. In all the years I’ve been following politics I’ve never seen this idea so unashamedly embraced. Lying has long been a part of politics, but until 2 years ago people still acknowledged that lying was not OK (even if they did it). Now there are whole rafts of pundits out there who are unabashedly claiming that lying is OK, and even admirable.
Bill Mac, who are some of the pundits on the raft who are there claiming lying is ok? It gets down to who decides what is the lie and what is just political posturing, political lies.
Again, people voted for Trump on the issues and his policies, in spite of his boorish, unpolitical and unprofessional behavior. If Trump was a polished , skilled political with even average restraint his popularity would be about 60 % Policy and issues override behavior as the average person is fed up with both establishment parties. Trump will lose “bigly: if he backs down on his core issues. No matter what the “pundits” expound, the loyalty Trump voters have is to his policy and his issues. Trump , if he wins in 2020 will have started a new political party by taking over the Republican Party.
To beat the establishment and the media , Tru;mp had to be what he was. No other Republican, would have beat Hillary Clinton. Trump outragous behavior overcame the mainstream media, the Republican establishment party, the big money donors, the Democrat party and all the K street lobby , special interest.
Steve,
I hear a similar refrain practically every night. His followers excuse every despicable thing he does with the refrain, “well, he won”. This is the new normal, the ends justify any means.
Bill Mac, the refrain from me is not that he won, the refrain is his issues and policies won. Trump has lowered unemployment including minorities, he has increased defense spending, he is attempting to enforce immigration laws, he has reduce taxes and made economy better, got us out of TPP , Iran deal, North Korea tried to deal with a mess and more. he has done some things he said he would do.
Not much if any of this would have happened If Hillary Clinton would have won. Trumps “ends” are his rude and terrible social behavior , which I will tolerate for the issues cited above over the gracious and elegant phony behavior of Hillary Clinton, who just lauded a 11 year old for behavior that should not be rewarded. You have to make a choice and Americans did. Unfortunately the establishment , did not and does not like the choice the “yokels” made.
Steve D: Don’t you think you are being a tad radical in your comments? I do. You lose me every time you comment. It’s just too over the top. There is no conversing with you.
Pot meet kettle.
🙂
Chldren, behave or I will send you to your rooms without supper.
Hehehe – Daddy Miller didn’t say anything about dessert!
Yes, he got us out of TPP< the Iran deal, and met with Kim as well as Putin. Anybody can scrap deals. Putin and Kim rejoiced in their meeting with him. So what? And maybe my memory is slipping, but I seem to recall him promising a BETTER deal toward Asian markets and Iran, as well as much better and cheaper insurance, plus infrastructure deals. Where are those?
At least we found out that Kim is a funny but tough leader who loves his people, and that Vlad’s feelings are hurt when we accuse Russia of interfering in our elections. After all, why would it be Russia?
To call the American political system dysfunctional right now is akin to saying the ocean is wet. Some believe the main issue with our government is the two party system. I have read where people long for the days gone by where there was decency and respectful disagreement. I desire decency and respect but understand the modern era is not worse than any in our history. In 1884 Grover Cleveland running for the presidency was rumored to have fathered an illegitimate child. His opponents chanted at his rallies, “Momma where is my Poppa?” When Cleveland won his supporters added to the chant the answer, “Gone to the White House, Ha, Ha.”
During the Republican convention of 1884, former Speaker of the House James G. Blaine, said of Senator George Edmunds of Vermont, “My friend, the statesman from the silly little colony of Vermont is simply a buttwang.” The good old days?
I’m not convinced the two party system is the culprit for our nation’s divisions and dysfunction, at least not solely. The erosion of our nation’s free press into what it has become today is a huge factor in what ails America. That coupled with the fact that many get their news from social media posts has turned our electorate into Pavlovian dogs who bark and foam when our whistle is sounded. We have always had opposing political sides and functioned. The difference now is our news sources are not reporting facts but using creative skills are writing stories to recruit people to one side or the other. This septic practice taking place when there is no cooling down period thanks to 24/7 coverage is a cancer eating away at our nation.
Dean, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted there.
In fact, just yesterday, I was sharing with a friend the fact that name calling by our politicians, the electorate, and by the media is nothing new…not even close…thanks for the specific examples. The Lincoln-Douglass debates were pretty intense too if I remember correctly. Jackson and Johnson were also famous for sharp tongues back in the day. No blogs, sure – but the newspapers (many were utterly controlled by the powerful with agendas back then as they are today) were certainly outlets for vitriol….
I, like you, am not sure that the two party system is the sole source of America’s political/social problems – but for many of us there’s a reasonable belief that it’s a big time contributing factor. As is the “media”.
ANyone who “longs for the good old days of respectful politics” hasn’t read the political interactions of days gone by.
I have to say that your comment from Mr. Edwards gave me a genuine LOL.
I would NOT say that the two-party system is THE culprit (if I did in the article then it was heat-of-the-moment hyperbole). I would say that it pours gas on the fire and that our problems will not be solved.
Our problems are heart-issue problems .
Well Jackson was (correctly) accused of bigamy. Grover Cleveland’s opponents built their entire campaign around the fact that he had an illegitimate child. Grant hired all of his best friends for cabinet positions and probably still holds the record for most scandals in one administration. Vice President Burr killed former Secretary of the Treasury in a duel. Vice President President Calhoun tried to initiate succession of the Southern States about 2 decades before the Civil War. These are just the first examples that come to mind. Even Washington’s term had its share of troubles. (Google the Whisky Rebellion for more information.) Basically, it’s what happens when earthly rulers govern. Imagine that!
And they were all still better servants in their elected offices than was the recent POTUS, Mr. Obama.
The problem isnt that there is two parties. The problem is that both parties are run by people. People are the problem. Thus it is a problem that cant be solved. As the church in the USA sought to be a bedfellow with the governments of the USA, the church, not the government became distorted, and also in its expectations. We as ambassadors for the righteousness of God want and desire to live in a country that reflects that righteousness. But it isnt nor has itever been the USA. Nor will it ever be.
Therefore we should lower our expectations and understand that its getting worse and it will keep getting worse just like every man made entity. Our cars rust, our roads fall apart, our buildings fall down. Our governments are subject to the wills and whims of people, fallen in nature and thus their acts/choices reflect that fact. As President Washington said, money and power cause problems in government.
Thus it will not help to send statesmen or stateswomen to Washington. It is aptly named the swamp. Neither will Trump clean it out, even if he is re-elected. Itsmore than just DC, but includes power brokers from finance and media and defense and so on. Many believe their own intentions are good, their cause is just even as they oppose others who believe the same of themselves.
We need to not look to politicians for correction, for it will not happen. That is not to say we should not vote or get involved in any way with the political process. We have a duty to be good citizens and seek to influence the culture as we can. But only after we grasp that the very best way to change lives is to proclaim the Gospel, at home and away, aid and comfort our own first and foremost, and then to aid those we meet along the road of life, who are our neighbors. So let us vote our conscience, even run for ffice if we are so led, but always keep our work for the Lord as noted as primary.
Mike White,
God did constitute human government. Government is of God. Government’s undoing is by man. However, government is not a “man made entity.” We are accountable for government. We are the government.
CB,
Yes God establishes governments. Thats not what i meant. But they are not established to be everlasting. Some ‘bad’ governments, like the China’s, have been around in one form or another for a long time.
But when you say “we are the government” I take that to mean that the people of the USA are the government. That means that this ‘we’ is comprised with not only Christians, but also nominal christians, Mormons, atheists, Muslims, etc. We send people to Washington that may or may not represent the majority views of their constituents. I mean by represent, vote. And they dont always vote according to the platform they ran on.
So tell me CB how it is the people run the country when their duly elected representatives vote however they please and not always in accordance to what they promised? Do you know how much big money donors influence votes in the halls of power?
Certainly God uses government as means toHis ends both present ones and those to come, including maintaining some order in this world so that the Gospel might flourish as He sees fit. Likewise, we should vote and be good citizens, even s i have already remrked.
Likewise we should be grateful to God that we have lived and continue to live in a country with freedom to worship and express our beliefs without reprisal.
But we, as the church, neither corporately or as individuals, are accountable for our government. We are only accountable for what we as individuals do, or as we as congregations decide to do corporately. You cant have it both ways. You cant say the government is of God and make Christians accountable for it.
Rather God holds those in government accountable for their choices. The power they have, the greter their accounr=tability before God. But we do not always see an earthly reckoning of that accountability. And is often nt earthly any ways.
Thus if you vote your conscience before God and your representative either fails to represent you or your community or is rendered ineffective, doesnt make you, or your church accountable for what happens in DC. When God looks at the nation to render judgment, He needs not look at the government but at the wickedness of the people, who break not only His laws but the laws of the land. And no government action can keep people from sinning and breaking God’s Laws.
So vote your conscience, get involved as much as you believe God leads, and focus on our mission, to proclaim the Gospel and love the brehren and then one’s neighbors.
“Do you know how much big money donors influence votes in the halls of power?”
Yes I do. Far beyond what you could know. I also know what corruption is in high and low places. You are right, I am talking about the government you are privileged to live under. It is a representative government. We elect the governance we have. We are responsible. We are the government.
BTW, government is no more temporal than is “The Church.” In the redemptive plan of God He will redeem all of His creation. He created government. He will redeem it. Christ is and shall forever be the King. See: Isaiah 9:6-7 ff. God will redeem everything in creation that sin has blemished.
The party system feeds into the party spirit and is inimical to good government.
Ok Cortana what is inimical? 🙂
There is a big difference between a party spirit, as you call it, and government action based off of worldview. I am a Republican based off of worldview, not based on “party.” For example, if a Democrat, or independent for that matter, in my state and district was ever pro-life, pro-family, pro-reasonable immigration, pro-growth, etc., etc. I would consider voting for them. Unfortunately, there has never been such a case.
Then, on top of that, the reality is a vote for a Democrat representative is a vote for horrible people like Pelosi or worse in the House, and Schumer in the Senate. No local vote is worth putting those people in power. It isn’t party, its standards and worldview.
Proverbs 21:1 (NASB, because it’s awesome) reminds us that “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hands of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.”
I give glory to God that so much of what President Trump has attempted that I thought would be bad, he has failed to accomplish. I give glory to God that so much of what people hoped that President Trump would accomplish (that I doubted that he would), he has accomplished.
In saying so, I do not deny that he has accomplished some things I do not like and has failed to accomplish some things that I would want to see accomplished. I simply am stating that, having refused to vote for him, I think that his term has gone much better in terms of laws enacted and people appointed than I had feared. And please do note, I give all of the credit of this to our merciful God, who is able to confound our bad plans and bless our good ones.
I have determined, for my part, to pray more for such means as these to protect us and lead us forward.
I constantly cringe at things Trump says, but if his current nominee gets approved we will have to give thanks for their impact on SCOTUS decisions
Yep.
Double yep.
My greatest frustration is not that both major parties have become addicted to political power (that’s kind of the whole point of a party, isn’t it?), but that Christians have demonstrated the same penchant for it, and used the same arguments to justify the need for it. Some of them have even been evident in the thread, and in many, many other threads over the past several years. It’s become quite evident in the past couple of years, that American Christians are by and large as addicted to power as the world. And it’s always easy to spot the addicts too, because they’re the ones who keep defending the need for political power by making excuses. I’m tired of excuses. Excuses are for people who have no desire to be transformed.
We are so blessed to live in the US to be able to have opinions and to express them at the ballot box.
I have some strong views, but tying them to Jesus can be tricky and difficult. The best examples are trying to base national welfare policy on Jesus’ teaching. Or trying to create a policy on immigration based on cherry picked verses from the OT. Or using apocalyptic literature as the basis for supporting Israel.
I am not tied to a party, but I am tied to what I believe to be good principles.
First, I love Christ and his church. I will not knowingly vote for someone whom I perceive to have it out for the church or Christians, either to persecute them or to restrict its mission, or to steal its assets.
I also believe in the US. I believe nation states, where people have joined together to declare a nation and adopt laws, are valid exercises in human freedom. So I am not for wiping out borders. And I believe in citizenship, a compact between citizens of a nation that is primary to relationships with people who live in other nations.
I believe in human freedom. Religious freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom.
I will vote for the candidate who or party that supports these beliefs.
I will not vote for a person who or a party that does not support these beliefs.
Given that politics is not perfect, I will vote for the candidate that best supports my beliefs. I am usually able to discern the differences to make this determination. I will not vote for a candidate that has no realistic chance of winning if it means that a candidate hostile to the things I believe is more likely to be elected.
I vote for Louis. Louis is right as the rain.
Louis , well expressed and good points. I believe the majority of SBC members agree with you. This has led to disconnect between SBC leadership at the Nashville level and the SBC lay person who lives in the real world and has real concerns. Thanks for your concise statement.
Dave,
Excellent article.
Without intentions of changing the subject, I will say that I was struck by the parallels to what the SBC has in the recent past been suffering. If the “spirit of party” ought to be avoided at all cost in the government, how much more the Church and its institutions?
Amen, amen and amen to this last comment. The SBC has had almost 40 years of one party rule with no checks and balances. Finally, that party is over.
Here is the bottom line. Trump will never put the country’s best interest ahead of his own. Never. He will do some things that turn out to be positive only when it costs him nothing.
I agree…..it sure seems he only does things (all things he does) for his own (real or perceived) personal benefit.
For example – i don’t believe for a second he’s actually pro life or pro religious liberty – but his admin has done good things on both fronts.
I will rejoice good results even though I am pretty confident his motives are wrought in mere vanity.
To borrow from Paul:
15Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. – Philippians 1:15-18
If President Trump is doing good regardless of motive, should that not be praised? Not him but the good? Just an observation, but why is it so hard for some people to say “Thank you President Trump for doing (xxx)”? On the rare times that President Obama did something I agree with, I said so. I also made it a strong point to say “President” Obama, rather than just say “Obama”. Regardless of the person in the office, the office DOES demand respect.
Because whatever little good he does, he continues to be bad. I am not going to say thank you to someone who does and says what Trump does and says. If you are using the passage in Philippians 1 as your Bible proof. I would say I can’t begin to show how that passage is being used totally out of context. This is why using the Bible is fruitless and I would say sinful in the twisting to justify such evil. The office does not demand respect when someone like Trump is in it. That is again heading toward dictatorship. As a Christian, as a American I do have a choice and don’t have to respect anything that goes against my Christian morals.
I think you prove my point quite well Debbie. You have such hatred for President Trump, hatred pure hatred, that you are completely blind.
Paul and Peter were most certainly under the reign of Nero when they penned Romans and 1st Peter respectively. If they can say what they do about government, and how Christians should act towards it while under the literal reign of someone like Nero, how much more so should we act with charity for someone like President Trump? President Trump is NOT anywhere close to Nero. President Trump is no where close to being the most dictator like President we have had in the United States.
Finally, I put forward that if you remove personality, if you remove the person in the office, and look only at the policies that have been enacted in the past 1.5 years, few who call them socially and fiscally conservative would be upset. That is JUST looking at policies. And if you are unable to do that, with out divorcing yourself from the man, from the personality, does that not show your bias and hatred so fierce that you are beyond reason?
I think for the purposes of discussion someone should define “anti-gun”. Almost everyone believes in gun control. Almost everyone believes there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed (automatic weapons for example). People just draw the line in different places. That is not anti-gun. Anti-gun (in my definition) means repeal the 2nd amendment and outlaw all guns except in the hands of the military and law enforcement. While there are no doubt some people who hold this view, they are not primarily the people being labeled as anti-gun. People who want assault weapons banned or longer waiting periods or more stringent background checks may be wrong, but they are not anti-gun.