Skip to main content

Trump Doesn't Represent Me

I got pretty emotional in thinking through writing this post. I flat-out don't like Donald Trump; I don't live in the thought world where he is a viable option. This man mocks women, the disabled, and ethnic minorities. He doesn't make sense when he talks, and time reveals that he has no idea what he's actually talking about. He revels in his own ignorance. I actually suffered through the primary debates, and I wondered how someone so manifestly unfit could have made it this far. I guess people have learned to reflexively defend anyone on their side, no matter how absurd the notion. That makes me saddest of all.

I'm supposed to say that of course Clinton is worse. Perhaps she is, at that. But I find I don't care. What good has it done, supporting these Republicans, anyway? Abortion goes on, along with the destruction of the family, gay "marriage," rampant gun violence, religious bigotry, and a host of other problems. If my social media feed is any guide, so-called "conservatives" have nothing but selfish rage underlying whatever opinions they hold. Even if some progressives really are using the power of government to make certain views unpopular, what if there is no philosophy to which we return?

It's not that there is no harm in Clinton winning, but ask yourself: "Is this an election I want to win?" I say, "No!" Donald Trump is evil; he deserves to be repudiated in no uncertain terms. How did we get to the point where we have accepted all of this as the price of doing business? No, I will not.

We at least used to be able to say--despite whatever moral flaws in the philosophy of government there were--that we had intellectual rigor, respect, and good faith in the offering of an alternative. What'll we say now? What can you say?

Jeb Bush recently said you can't insult your way to the presidency. Reluctantly, and with much trepidation, I hope he is right. I doubt I could convince most people to follow my way of thinking. But however you would describe my vision, it isn't this. I still think this is right, and to accept Trump is to give tacit support to all of it. Not me. Not today, or any day.

Comments

Christopher Lake said…
He doesn't represent me either, Jason-- and I admit that I am struggling with seeing so many kind, thoughtful, serious people of faith (Catholics and others) falling into line to actively advocate for him. I get that Hillary is terrible on so many issues. I can't bring myself to vote for her. I also can't bring myself to support Trump-- not even to stop her from becoming President, as much as I dread the thought. Ultimately, this seems to be turning out to be the year in which I reach the realization that I want to be more Catholic than Republican, or even, anymore, conservative (Trump being none of the three, but I digress).

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un