Skip to main content

I May Well Be "Tedious"

I could read 30 columns all criticizing Donald Trump. He doesn't become more acceptable to me as time passes. In fact, one of the things I promised to myself is that I would never stop being angry in some form about the things which ought to make a person of good conscience angry. That's the danger in the politics game: you've got your side, and as long as either your side is winning, or the other side is as appallingly bad as they've always been, you feel the pressure to ignore or overlook wrong things from your own side.

The grisly reality of abortion, and the damage of the sexual revolution still doesn't go away. I can't join the opposition, because the opposition believes in the tenets of the sexual revolution. It's difficult, because I do believe the government is supposed to be a force for good, to actually regulate the exchange of goods and services for the sake of the common good. I'm not on the Right, precisely because I believe the common good exists, and is more than simply a collection of private goods. We should apply the ethics of believing that we're all in this together to the exchange of goods and services, and to the role of government, and to the protection of the vulnerable innocent.

Yet I do long for the day when the president of the United States again behaves presidentially. We're going to need a replacement for that to happen. It doesn't mean that I want anything bad to happen to Donald Trump. It doesn't mean that I agree completely with AOC. It does mean that if the rest of the country decides to use Joe Biden as a palate cleanser, I'm not standing in the way. Furthermore, I will be in fervent prayer concerning Joe Biden's opinions and actionable political beliefs regarding the sexual revolution. You'll forgive me though, if I can't bring myself to be upset, if and when he wins.

What is a "bad" president? I think the quickest and easiest way to be a bad president is to be a bad person. I think this despite whatever individual opinions I may have on the prudential issues of the day. With respect to the definition I just provided, I think the best president in the last 50 years is perhaps Jimmy Carter. The economy wasn't good, and the Iran hostage crisis didn't work out to Carter's benefit politically, but there is nobody in this country that looks at President Carter today with malice in his heart, or maybe not even a negative thought. On the issues of taxes or guns, or whatever we usually judge presidents by, the issues fade with time. But did he bring us together when he had the chance? When we had a crisis far beyond any of our abilities, did he say words that let us know we would be OK? Did he ever make us embarrassed to be citizens of our own country?

I might choose to vote with different criteria, and you might as well. But for me, character counts the most. I will not apologize for believing that, and for acting upon it.

Comments

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