jasonbwatson

November 4, 2016

The Prophetic George Washington (Part 3)

Washington continued his address by transitioning to the matter of public debt. Debt was a big deal during the Washington administration and the assumption of state debts was a crucial element of the plan out forward by Alexander Hamilton to unify the nation and strengthen its economy. (Interestingly, this plan also ended up resulting in Hamilton’s support of relocating the national capital to the banks of the Potomac River, as he needed Thomas Jefferson’s support for his financial plan). Washington was intimately familiar with the financial cost of war and with what happens when soldiers and officers are not paid as promised, so he knew whereof he spoke when he addressed the matter of public debt. Still, while recognizing that it may at times be necessary, he left no question as to his opinion on the subject. Note what he had to say:

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

That’s a long paragraph and it is, at times, wordy, but Washington makes three key points: avoid debt whenever possible, pay off debt that was unavoidable as quickly as possible, and remember that public debt can only be paid from public revenue–so it is necessary to pay taxes.

The United States has done exactly what Washington advised so strongly against. We have accumulated, and continued to add to, a massive public debt–one now hovering around $20 trillion. We have, for several generations now, been “ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” Back in 1995 and again in 1997 I devoted considerable time and attention to the federal budget–why it was in the shape it was in and what needed to be done about it. I did that as a lowly undergraduate student in college. My research and findings generated mild interest from professors at my university as well as others after I presented at an honors symposium, but it was essentially an academic exercise. Nothing came of it and no one really paid much attention. Several years before that Harry Figgie and Gerald Swanson had written a book–which did receive a fair amount of attention–entitled Bankruptcy 1995. Believe it or not, the predictions of that book could not have been much closer to spot on, as the federal government did shut down over budgetary issues in 1995. In his two presidential runs, but especially in 1992, Ross Perot devoted the bulk of his attention and energy to the matter of the U.S. debt. What, by the way, was the national debt in 1992? It was just over $4 trillion. We’re not doing anything to solve the problem. We are burdened with a debt that our ancestors ungenerously burdened us with, and we are doing nothing but piling on to it and–ungenerously–passing it on to our posterity. Eventually someone is going to have to pay the piper.

That piper, by the way, is mostly U.S. citizens and entities, but about one-third of U.S. debt is owned by foreign nations. About $1.3 trillion is held by China and $1.1 trillion by Japan, with other nations holding $3.8 trillion (according to a May 2016 report from CNN). And that raises another point that Washington made. He cautioned strongly against being attached too strongly to other nations, be that through treaties or just closer-than-healthy fondness. He did not mention debt specifically, but he would have understood it as an issue, since the United States had debts owed to France following the Revolutionary War. Such “avenues to foreign influence,” Washington said, “are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot.” Why would that be? Simply this:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. … Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and to serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.

Washington cautioned the U.S. to honor its existing treaties at the time he left office and to resist making more. The risks involved with getting too entwined with another country were simply not worth it, Washington believed. The risks far outweighed the reward. That is because, as Washington and so many of the founders understood, human nature is fickle and corrupt. It is hard enough to govern your own people fairly and effectively; why introduce a dependence upon the people and/or governments of other nations over which the U.S. had (and has) no control? “There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation,” Washington said.

We have failed, as a nation, to heed Washington’s warnings about party and faction. We have failed to heed his warnings about religion and morality. We have failed to heed his warnings about public debt and dependence upon foreign nations. Regardless of who wins the election next Tuesday, We the People have a long way to go and a lot of work to do to even begin to rectify the mess we have gotten ourselves in by ignoring, and continuing to ignore, the wisdom of the Father of our Country. George Washington was not perfect because no one is. Imagine, however, how different things would be today if our parties disagreed respectfully and actually worked together to accomplish what is best for the country. Imagine how different things would be today if religion and morality were not relegated to the categories of irrelevant and unnecessary. Imagine how different things would be if we paid off unavoidable debts quickly or even, having missed the chance to do that, determined to stop adding to it. That would be a very different country than the one we find ourselves in today.

November 1, 2016

The Prophetic George Washington (Part 2)

After addressing the dangers of political parties and factions George Washington makes a clear and unmistakable shift in focus, beginning with this statement: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

I think anyone would be hard pressed today to find any evidence to refute this statement. Political prosperity is not something that the United States is enjoying today by almost any means of measurement–and the “indispensable supports” of religion and morality have been increasingly seen as dispensable over the past fifty or sixty years. Notice, by the way, that Washington did not say that religion and morality were helpful or beneficial or even advantageous; rather, he said they are indispensable. Much like fuel for an automobile, in other words; without it, the car is not going anywhere. Similarly, in Washington’s mind, there cannot be political prosperity without morality and religion.

Washington went on, though, in order to ensure that there was no misunderstanding the point he was making. First, he said it was contradictory to claim to be patriotic while also opposing or undermining morality and religion. Second, he said that without religion and morality property, life and reputation were all tenuous at best. Third, he said,

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of the refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Morality is all about right verses wrong–specifically the principles of right conduct. Washington knew, without a doubt, that if religion is removed, or even significantly diminished, that morality would crumble. That is because without religion–specifically, a belief that there is a God and that He created earth and humans and is sovereign–there is no basis for right and wrong. When God is removed from the equation it all boils down to survival of the fittest, might makes right, he who has the most toys wins, or fill in the blank with any other self-centered, power-based worldview.

It matters not at all, Washington said, if there is a wonderful educational system. That is because if the supports of religion are removed, what is being taught is all without foundation. It is tenuous, it is temporary, it will shift with the whims of the people or the preferences of those in power. “Who that is a sincere friend to it [a free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?” Washington asked. And, that by way, was a rhetorical question, assuming the answer of “no one.” That is because, in Washington’s mind–and based on his experience–the two were mutually exclusive.

So, when we find ourselves looking at the mess our country is in, wondering how the best two candidates “we the people” could come up with for the highest office in the land–if not the world–are a serial liar and serial adulterer, someone with no regard for the law and another with no regard for common decency–we need look no further than Washington’s Farewell Address. We have systematically removed religion from the public sphere and even done our best to minimize it in the private sphere–or at least to keep in private–and the result has been a collapse or morality, an embrace of that which has served only to “shake the foundation of the fabric” of our country. We have bid adieu to religious principle; we cannot now be surprised that national morality has followed it out the door.

October 26, 2016

The Prophetic George Washington

I have written here twice–fairly adamantly at that–that so-called prophecies shared recently that Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States are false prophesies. I did not say that Trump will not be elected–though I am doubtful that he will–but that God did not reveal any prophetic message to anyone that Trump was His chosen man. I stand by that position. In this post, however, I would like to talk about the prophetic George Washington. By that I do not mean that Washington was a prophet or that he received any prophecies from God. Part of the definition of “prophetic” though is “predictive” and “ominous” and Washington was definitely that.

I would like to draw your attention specifically to Washington’s Farewell Address. It was not actually delivered publicly, but Washington’s thoughts in September 1796, as he decided not to run for a third term in office, contain a wealth of valuable and relevant advice that our country would do well to remember now 220 years later.

After sharing his thoughts on his tenure in office, his feelings for the people and the nation and his appreciation for the trust that had been placed in him, Washington transitions with this:

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend for your review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people.

If nothing else, the address is a primer in 18th-century vernacular and may serve to expand someone’s vocabulary, but the simple truth is that Washington’s reflections led him to share some of the most insightful, practical and crucial comments on the elements essential to maintaining America as a free, independent and thriving nation.

I strongly recommend reading the entire address. It is not overly long and it can be found with ease by doing an internet search. Allow me, though, to highlight a few of Washington’s most poignant observations.

Regarding political parties, which were just beginning to emerge during Washington’s presidency, he said this: “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Here Washington was talking specifically about regional differences being taken advantage of by parties, but his point is relevant even now that regional differences are not so important as they were then. Do political parties misrepresent the opinions and aims of the other party(-ies)? Ummm…yeah. In fact that seems to be what they spend the majority of their time doing. If you have watched any of the debates this presidential season you have seen Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spend most of their time saying something about each other only to then have the other respond with something along the lines of, “everything just said is completely false” or something even more strongly worded.

Washington, too, knew that the dangers of party went far beyond geographic and regional differences. Roughly half way through the address he said this:

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 his 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 the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

If you follow current events at all then the last paragraph above will sound eerily familiar to you. How many jealousies and false alarms have occupied the national news media in the past six months (and beyond)? How much animosity is there between the two parties? It is incredible; toxic almost. The time, effort and attention of the candidates and the parties (not to mention the media) is primarily on the squabbles and the scandals, calling names and slinging mud, with little of any substantive discussion of what policies might be pursued to actually help the country. And have we opened the door to foreign influence and corruption? I think “flung it open” might be more accurate. Read some of the accounts of the foreign influence purchased through the Clinton Foundation. Read about the amount of influence China has over the United States because of the amount of our debt China owns. Read about the offer from Russia to send election monitors over to the U.S. to ensure that the elections on November 8 are free and fair, i.e. “not rigged.”

Washington was no fool, and he knew that it would be impossible to eliminate parties and factions from any country. He did, though, observe this: “A fire not to be quenched, it demands uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.” I think it is safe to say that it is indeed bursting into flame, and the United States may well be consumed.

Back in 2008 Sean Collins wrote a book review for Spiked Online that began with this sub-heading: “It is not a clash of ideologies but rather an empty bickering over nothing of much substance that makes the presidential campaign seem so shrill and divided.” If that were true in 2008 it is exponentially more true today. In a 2014 PowerPoint presentation available online, Artemus Ward of Northern Illinois University’s Political Science department stated, “there are now, more than ever before, two Americas—Democratic America and Republican America that have inevitably led to government by crisis (shutdowns, sequestrations, fiscal cliffs, and debt ceiling threats).” In a 2015 article, the Washington Post examined ten reasons why American politics are worse than ever, and included this statement: “As these [party] divisions have intensified, Americans have come to hate the other party and its members more and more.”

I could provide additional commentary and evidence–and you could easily find your own with an online search if you do not already have enough knowledge from personal experience–but it is obvious that what Washington warned would happen has indeed happened. It did not just happen, but it is certainly getting worse. The fire has burst into a flame–and if we do not put it out it will indeed consume.

Next time I will examine another facet of Washington’s prophetic Farewell Address.

 

August 11, 2016

Evaluating Donald Trump–and Why Hillary Clinton Cannot be an Option

This is, by far, my longest post ever. It also includes far more links that I usually include so that you can read the thoughts of others for yourself if you wish. This post’s length reflects two important things, I think. One, this is an incredibly important issue. Two, it does not have an easy answer and trying to make sense of it is difficult at best. This is my best effort at doing that and, if you stick with me to the end, I thank you for your endurance.

Whether or not Christians should vote for Donald Trump is a question that is getting a lot of attention these days—and rightly so. Voting is a privilege and a responsibility, and Christians have a specific responsibility, I believe, to stand for biblical values and truth in a secular society—which includes through the ballot box. Accordingly, the question of whether or not to vote for Trump—or Hillary Clinton—is a valid one and one that is worthy of serious contemplation. No one should vote blindly or ignorantly, nor should anyone cast his vote based solely on the letter that appears after the candidate’s name (party affiliation). Individuals far more well known that me, far more educated than me and with far larger followings than me have already weighed in on this question and will no doubt continue to do so…but I see no reason for that to deter me from sharing my opinion!

On July 28 Wayne Grudem posted his thoughts on Townhall in an editorial entitled “Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice.” He starts his thoughts by saying that many Christians have told him that when faced with choosing between two evils the right thing to do is to choose neither, meaning that a vote for Trump is not an option. These folks, says Grudem, advocate a vote for a write-in or third party candidate. To that, Grudem responds that, with his 39 years of experience teaching Christian ethics, he believes that “voting for a Trump is a morally good choice” now that Trump is indeed the Republican nominee. Before giving his specific reasons why he thinks this, Grudem states the following:

American citizens need patience with each other in this difficult political season. Close friends are inevitably going to make different decisions about the election. We still need to respect each other and thank God that we live in a democracy with freedom to differ about politics. And we need to keep talking with each other – because democracies function best when thoughtful citizens can calmly and patiently dialog about the reasons for their differences.

I agree with Grudem about that, and, just as his post was his effort at contributing to the discussion, this is mine. If you discuss politics with family and friends at all, or look at a Facebook feed every now and then, you are no doubt baffled, frustrated or just downright upset with the political inclinations of some people you know right now. Me too. The challenge on that front is to respectfully express our differences, kindly try to persuade, but, in the end, still have love and respect for those people even when they disagree with us. So it is not my desire here to denigrate anyone, but I do think this is a discussion worth having.

Grudem says that voting for a flawed candidate is not morally wrong if you think that candidate will do more good for the nation than will his opponent. I would agree with that and would suggest that we all do. After all, if you are a Christian and you believe in the sin nature of man, then you must recognize that there is no such thing as a candidate who is not flawed. If we could only vote for candidates who were not flawed then we would never be able to vote.

In a paragraph enumerating Trump’s flaws Grudem begins with this sentence: “He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash.” Certainly true. At the conclusion of that paragraph, which includes reference to Trump’s marital infidelity, he writes, “These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.” Now I do not know, and to my knowledge Grudem has not said, but it would seem to me that the words this election are crucial in that sentence. In other words, it would seem to me that Grudem is stating that while the flaws of Trump—which are, admittedly, greater than the flaws of many other candidates who ran in this election and who have been nominated in the past—would disqualify him from consideration in any other election, the fact that Trump and Clinton are the only major candidates left now makes this situation different. Grudem explained that he spoke against a Trump candidacy just six months ago, but his position has now changed. That causes me to think that when there were a dozen other candidates to consider, Grudem did not think Trump was a good moral choice.

That does beg the question of whether or not someone who is not an acceptable candidate at one time can become an acceptable candidate later when said candidate has not changed at all but the environment in which he is running has changed and the options have diminished. Is the acceptability of a candidate subjective or not?

Back in April Andy Naselli wrote a post on his web site entitled “Can You Vote for Donald Trump with a Clear Conscience?” Naselli had just coauthored a book on the conscience, so this was a relevant subject for him to address. Like Grudem, he began by enumerating Trump’s flaws and failures. He made it clear that Trump is not a man of good character. “A presidential candidate does not need to sign off on my church’s doctrinal statement to earn my vote,” he wrote. “But character matters immensely for leaders. If a presidential candidate is not trustworthy in other areas, how can we entrust him with the most influential governmental position in the world?” There is really no debate over many of the points Naselli makes, including that Trump brags about his adultery, mocks and disrespects women and those with disabilities, is shamelessly proud and so on. His conclusion? “Trump is not morally qualified to lead a Boy Scout troop.”

In his article, Grudem explains that be believes Christians have a responsibility to seek the good of the nation in which they live, and I agree. He cites Jeremiah 29:7 as support for that position: “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (ESV). I think there are ample other passages that can also be used to support the importance of Christians seeking to influence for good the community, state, nation and even world in which they live. John MacArthur wrote a book a number of years ago entitled Why Government Can’t Save You. I do not agree with everything he wrote there, but I certainly agree that government cannot save anyone, nor should seeking to influence the public good through government ever replace the importance of seeking to lead lost souls to salvation. But I think Grudem would agree with that.

Naselli writes, “If you vote for a presidential candidate in America’s democratic republic, it does not mean that you fully endorse all of that person’s policies or that you think that person’s character is stellar.” He says there are two basic voting strategies—voting for “the least bad candidate who has the best chance of winning” and voting “for the best (or least bad) candidate, even if that person has a low chance of winning” (italics his). Naselli says he has employed the first option to this point in his life but questions now whether or not there is a limit on the application of that principle. “Can the most viable candidates be so bad that you cannot dignify either of them with your vote?” he asks.

He goes on to use an example of an election between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. If they were the two most viable candidates, Naselli asks, would someone really feel obligated to vote for the lesser of the two evils? “The strategy to vote for the lesser of two evils breaks down at some point. You must draw the line somewhere. The question is where to draw that line.” I agree that there does come a tipping point, but I think it is also necessary to bear in mind the notion of taking the course that will do the most good for the nation within the available options—and I will address that later using Naselli’s hypothetical as an excellent example.

It is precisely because of the responsibility to vote for the person who will do the most good for the nation that Grudem says voting for Trump is the moral thing to do. In his estimation, a vote for someone other than Trump, such as a write-in or third party candidate, is a de facto vote for Clinton, since it reduces the number of votes Clinton needs to win. Historically, there is significant evidence of a third party candidate making a difference in some elections, so that is a legitimate concern. Grudem’s point is that by not voting for Trump someone would be in essence supporting Clinton; in other words, voting for someone other than Trump and Clinton is as effective as voting for Mickey Mouse…or not voting at all.

Accordingly, the real question Grudem asks is, “Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?” That is a very fair question. I think Grudem goes too far, however, in claiming James 4:17 as reason to support Trump; I do not think it is reasonable or accurate to say that voting for someone other than Trump is sin because of the fact that it could result in helping Clinton.

Grudem goes through a long list of topics that should matter to Christians and that will be adversely affected of Clinton wins in November. These topics include sanctity of life, religious liberty, freedom of speech and, most importantly, the makeup of the Supreme Court. He also addresses issues like taxes, minorities, the military, terrorism, Israel, energy and health care.

In response to the rhetorical question “Does character matter?” Grudem answers,I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.” I am really not so sure that his character is better than it is portrayed. Does the media seem to relish in portraying his worst moments and most ridiculous statements? Of course. But that does not change the fact that they are there. In other words, the way his character is portrayed, even in the left-wing media, is usually not completely fabricated. Is his character better than Clinton’s? I suspect it may be, but that still goes back to the “choosing between two evils” conundrum.

Alex Chediak, also on Townhall.com, responded to Grudem’s essay on August 1. He wrote, of Trump’s claim that he entered the political arena to defend those who cannot defend themselves against the powerful who continue to beat up on them, that in actuality “we see [from Trump’s track record] the picture of a fundamentally arrogant, selfish, and greedy man, who will do or say anything to beat his rivals. This is a man who glories in a kind of self-exaltation that most of us would find shameful.”

Grudem says those who reduce their decision on whom to vote for solely to character are guilty of reductionism, but I would disagree. A person’s character will determine how he or she will handle all of the other issues that matter. During one of the presidential debates John Kasich responded to an answer Ted Cruz gave regarding his philosophies by saying, “You don’t run anything with philosophy.” Kasich’s point was that actually having done something is more meaningful. The truth, though, is that one’s philosophy will dictate how he or she will run something. Trump’s character and philosophy indicates that he has usually been out to do what is best for him and his personal bottom line. He made it clear during the debates that he is proud of all the money he made in Atlantic City and the fact that he got out before most other casino owners, but the record of his operations in Atlantic City is not flattering.

Chediak says he agrees with Grudem that character cannot be the only factor to consider, but he also says that there comes a point where poor character makes it a necessary consideration. Writes Chediak,

But there is a character threshold that we should expect any candidate to meet. A man who owns his vices as if they were virtues, who talks proudly about “going after the families” of suspected terrorists, who has profited from strip clubs, who is by all accounts a pathological liar, who disparaged a disabled journalist, who insulted POWs, who criticized the looks of a rival’s wife, is unworthy of the office of president.

I agree with most of what Chediak said there. I have to ask though, who is worthy of the office of president? How do we determine that? Who gets to decide is us—we the people. That means, by default, that anyone who gets elected is “worthy.” When we are the losing side of the equation we probably do not like that, but we would not really want any alternative. If we were to suggest that some group of people should get to determine who is worthy or eligible to be the president we would only like it as long as we were in that group. That’s the great—and terrible—thing about democratic government; the majority will sometimes choose a candidate that we feel is completely wrong for the job, either by his positions and/or by his character. James Madison famously wrote, in The Federalist #51, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Men are not angels, and angels do not govern men, which is why we have to take seriously our responsibility as voters. In Christianity Today Russell Moore wrote, “In our system, citizen is an office; we too bear responsibility for the actions of the government.” That is also why, by the way, not voting is really not an option in my opinion. Even if a candidate lacking character—a candidate we feel is “unworthy of the office of president”—wins the office, we must be diligent to do all that we can within the system to keep him or her accountable through the checks and balances within our system. We have not done a good job of that in recent years, with a Congress that has allowed the president to usurp his constitutional powers on multiple occasions without calling him on it in any meaningful way and with a judicial branch that has created rights that do not exist and laws that were not voted on without holding those judges accountable either.

Grudem said that people’s concern that Trump will not be the president he has promised to be is a moot point because “all of American presidential history shows that that result is unlikely, and it is ethically fallacious reasoning to base a decision on assuming a result that is unlikely to happen.” I don’t agree with that either. That’s akin to saying that because everyone lies we should not care if one individual person lies. To use the faults of the whole to justify or excuse the faults of the one is ethically fallacious, too. I hesitate to start a debate with an ethics professor on ethical fallacies but this particular assertion by Grudem is an example of appeal to probability. Grudem says it is ethically fallacious to base a decision on the assumption that a result is unlikely to happen but it is just as fallacious to base it on a result that is likely to happen. Trump probably won’t do what he has said he will is a fallacious argument Grudem says, but opposing that by arguing that no one does what they say they will is also fallacious. Grudem is committing a fallacy of his own, saying that history tells us that candidates rarely do govern as they promise, so of course Trump is unlikely to as well.

Of course Grudem is not the only person whose writing is getting attention on this question. Though not nearly as prominent a voice as Grudem, a blogger named Shannon Dingle posted, on July 31, her opinion on the matter. It was entitled “I’m pro-life. And I’m voting for Hillary. Here’s why.” She says her opposition to abortion has not changed, but the Republican track record has caused her to come to the conclusion that she is “not sure we can hold that voting Republican is the best thing for abortion rates in this country.”

According to Dingle, “abortion rates rose under Reagan, rose under the first Bush, dropped under Clinton, held steady under the second Bush, and have been dropping under Obama.” However, I am not sure where received her information or on what she is basing that assertion. The National Right to Life Education Foundation reports, on nrlc.org, that the U.S. abortion rate (measured as the number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44) was lower when Regan left office than when he entered, lower when the first Bush left office than when he entered, was lower when Clinton left office than when he entered, was lower when Bush 43 left office than when he entered, and has also declined under Obama.

Perhaps Dingle misspoke and she meant the abortion ratio. That is the number of abortions per 100 births ending in live births or abortion. However, that number reached its peak in 1983 but had dropped markedly by the time Reagan left office. When Bush 41 left office it was slightly higher than when he entered, but then the ratio fell during the Clinton and Bush 43, and has also fallen under Obama. These are not NRLC numbers, either; they come from the Centers for Disease Control and the Guttmacher Institute. The NRLC did comment, however, that while the abortion rate is declining, the number of abortions from RU-486 and other similar means were up.

Dingle goes on to say that Trump has no political track record and therefore all we can go by are his words. Those words, she says, are “are inconsistent, unreliable, and highly subject to change based on what’s politically convenient for him.” I don’t disagree with that at all. She says he has a “newly minted pro-life stance,” and I do not disagree with that either. (That was also true of Mitt Romney, by the way). At the same time, Hillary Clinton has a political track record, and it is one firmly committed to the pro-abortion position. Just a few months ago she made the news with her comments on Meet the Press in which she said that unborn children do not have constitutional rights. She also said that the absence of those rights does not negate the responsibility to do whatever can be done medically to help the unborn child of a “mother who…wants to make sure that the child will be healthy.” Those words are significant because the imply Clinton’s well-known position that the medical community should also do whatever is necessary to end the life of an unborn child when the mother does not want that child. Here is an excerpt of Clinton’s response to Chuck Todd’s question, “When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?”

Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.

Dingle continues on to say that abortion—while deeply important to her—is not the only issue she is considered. She also makes it clear that she is voting for Clinton because she agrees with Clinton on enough issues to warrant her vote. If she did not, she says, she would abstain from voting or would vote for a third party candidate because she does not believe in voting against someone. Wrote Dingle, “I find enough I can affirm and identify with in the positions and record of Hillary Clinton.… Aside for abortion – which I do care about deeply – I see the Democrats as the party that champions other pro-life issues more effectively and consistently.”

Quite frankly, that statement blows my mind, so I found it very interesting to explore Dingle’s rationale. And she did not hold back, believe me. She enumerated ten ways in which she feels Clinton is a more pro-life candidate than Trump (and Republicans in general). Her first example is the lives of people with disabilities. Donald Trump has a hideous record of statements and insults directed toward and about individuals with disabilities and there is no defense for those statements. Clinton has a more admirable record of statements made about the still-existing need to provide more help and greater access for individuals with disabilities. So I will let Dingle have this point, but I do want to mention that the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by a Republican president (Bush 41) and Republicans Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, among others, have rock-solid records on the issue of individuals with disabilities, due in no small part to their own experience as parents of children with disabilities (and their position that parents who are told their child will have a disability should not have the right to abort that child—a position Clinton does not hold).

Dingle’s second point is on the matter of women who would otherwise get abortions. She suggests that “empowering poor and low-income women can make a difference in overall pregnancy termination rates.” I find the word empowering to be trite and therefore almost devoid of meaning, but Dingle specifically mentions family supports—especially for single mothers, increased educational access and frank conversations about the issue of rape. Dingle says Clinton started the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas and was “considered a leading advocate for abused and neglected children” shortly after leaving law school. That’s commendable, but it does not ignore the fact that Clinton only advocates for the rights of children who are already born—while simultaneously advocating for a woman’s right kill that child before it is born for no other reason than the fact that she does not want the child. In a 1995 speech at the UN women’s conference in Beijing Clinton made a gutsy statement, given the location of the conference. She said, “It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls….” That’s absolutely true. But let us not forget that Clinton supports the right of a woman to have a doctor do those exact same things to a baby before it leaves the womb. While Marco Rubio’s assertion earlier this year that Clinton supports abortion even up to the due date of the child may be a small stretch, Clinton said on Meet the Press Daily on September 28, 2015, “”There can be restrictions in the very end of the third trimester, but they have to take into account the life and health of the mother.” Note the key words—very end of the third trimester.

Dingle writes, “As the mother of children who one day might benefit from any or all of these policies [that can benefit women who might otherwise have an abortion], I can’t look them in the eye, say I value them deeply, and then justify a vote for Trump. As someone who believes the best anti-abortion policies prevent abortions rather than ban them, I can’t say I’m pro-life and say I’m with him. I can’t.”

To that I would ask Dingle, Could you look those same children in the eye and say you voted for a woman who believes you had the right to kill them before they were born if you had wished to do so?

I am not going to take the time to discuss all of Dingle’s points because I do not feel they all need to be discussed. It is true that Hillary Clinton has a more admirable record on some issues than does Donald Trump. There is no defending Trump’s treatment of, and comments about, women. Wrote Chediak,

Trump has directly profited from the debasement of women. Trump was the first to put a strip club in a casino in 2013, the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump was a frequent guest on the Howard Stern show, where the two men regularly objectified women in the most degrading of ways. When we combine this record with Trump’s boasts of marital unfaithfulness and (more recently) his grotesque remarks about Megyn Kelly and the looks of Carly Fiorina and Heidi Cruz, it’s hard to argue that accusations of misogyny are unjustified.  (emphasis mine)

But Dingle seems to lose her grasp of reality when she says Clinton will be a better candidate for the lives of our armed forces. After admitting that Clinton made a complete mess of Benghazi, Dingle writes, “but I do think Hillary learned from the grievous errors leading up to and following that horrible day.” Really? Based on what? When questioned by Congress she said, notoriously, “what difference does it make now?” I do not think that shows any lessons learned. Dingle cites James Comey’s failure to indict Clinton over her use of a private e-mail server as an example only of poor judgment. I think, despite Comey’s statement, that conclusion is erroneous. There is evidence that Clinton knew exactly what she was doing, and continued to do it intentionally—if for no other reason than to avoid future FOIA requests. Her behavior would have resulted in an indictment for anyone else.

Dingle says she was “I was astounded by the number of military leaders speaking at the DNC…vouching Hillary as the best choice for our troops and most knowledgeable in this area of policy.” I wonder if she has checked out the number of military leaders who have said that Clinton is absolutely not the best choice for our troops? I think she would be even more astounded.

In an article in WORLD Mindy Belz wrote, referring in part to a number of pieces the magazine has run exposing connections between the Clintons and rogue Nigerians,

Our reporting uncovered multiple ties between the Clinton Foundation, Hillary herself, and Nigerian business interests who benefited from the United States not cracking down on terror in Nigeria. It’s a small anecdote. But it fits a pattern of cover-up; of Clinton denying shady practices plain for all to see; of her dealing with rogues, defying the law in plain sight, and daring anyone to catch her. A nuclear arsenal and the world’s best army won’t be in trustworthy hands on her watch.

In November 2015 Rasmussen Reports reported that a “RallyPoint/Rasmussen Reports national survey of active and retired military personnel finds that only 15% have a favorable opinion of Clinton, with just three percent (3%) who view the former secretary of State Very Favorably. Clinton is seen unfavorably by 81%, including 69% who share a Very Unfavorable impression of her.”

In March of this year, on americanthinker.com, retired Air Force Colonel Chris J. Krisinger wrote, “If polling is any indicator, Mrs. Clinton has few fans in the military. … Given the military’s performance-based ethos, coupled with the ideals and standards U.S. military members are held to account for, it seems increasingly likely that few among them would publicly offer up their names and professional reputations for her political fortunes.” So there may be plenty of military personnel who oppose the notion of Donald Trump as Commander in Chief, but there are no doubt just as many who oppose Clinton for that position. And she, by the way, has a track record on which to base such opposition.

Near the end of her post Dingle writes, “One reason I’m voting for Hillary is that I know what and who I’m voting for.” That, in my mind, is exactly why I could not vote for Clinton. I know what I am voting for and I could never in good conscience lend my support or endorsement to Clinton’s past or promises for the future.

A different take on Clinton comes from a (much shorter) blog post by Helen Wickert on courageousmotherhood.net and entitled “An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton.” Having stated that she would love to be able to celebrate with her daughter the first nomination of a woman for president by a major political party, Wickert writes that she cannot. “Sadly, Mrs. Clinton, you have shown not only my daughter but all daughters—and not only in this country but globally—that in order to, in your words, ‘shatter the gla’ you have to lie, cheat, abuse, insult, bully and ignore.”

Wickert writes, “Mrs. Clinton, how can I possibly tell my daughter to follow you as an example after you allowed your husband to assault and demean multiple women throughout his political career?” Good question—especially since Dingle says that one of the reasons she is supporting Clinton is Trump’s abysmal record toward women. Trump demeans women with his words and actions, Dingle says. No argument from me on that one. But has not Clinton done the same? In January of this year the New York Times ran an article that enumerated a number of instances of Clinton’s attitude toward the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment or of having affairs with them. According to George Stephanopoulos Clinton said “We have to destroy her story” when Connie Hamzy came forward against Bill Clinton in 1991. The article also references Clinton’s approach toward Gennifer Flowers and quotes “one of her closest confidantes” as saying that Clinton called Monica Lewinsky “a narcissistic loony toon.” You can read the article for yourself if you want to know more.

Wickert also asks,

How can you get up and speak about income equality and then pay your own male executives considerably more than your female staff? How can you receive donations from countries that publicly abuse, shame and even execute their own women? Yet you continue to boast about how you stand for women’s rights. Double standard?

I have nothing to add to that, but it would be interesting to know how Dingle would respond. Wickert also raises the issue of Clinton’s $12,000 jackets she often speaks in and the six-figure speaking fees she collects. How do those facts contribute to Clinton’s ability or desire to help women who are struggling?

Wickert wasn’t through though; she also writes this:

You have the interests of only one woman in mind here: your own. You have done nothing to bring the United States together. Quite the contrary—you have done your best to divide, and you have succeeded. Congratulations. You crave power, and you will do whatever it takes to get it. You have lied, cheated and let down your own country.

Now it would be difficult to suggest that Trump has done much to bring the country together either. I am not suggesting that he has. But I am suggesting that Dingle’s assertions about Clinton being the better candidate really do not make much sense when you truly compare the two candidates.

This is already long and is only getting longer, so the time has come to begin moving toward a conclusion.

I said earlier that I would come back to Naselli’s example of an election between Hitler and Stalin. Obviously that would be an extremely undesirable choice to have to make, and if there really were a U.S. election with two such candidates it would be quite tempting to abstain or vote for a third party candidate. However, I said this was a perfect example because if we reflect back to World War II we see that the United States actually did choose Stalin over Hitler—just long enough to defeat Hitler. Very few people, if any, in the U.S. liked the idea of working together with the Soviets, but it was a temporary necessity in order to defeat Nazi Germany, which was an even worse evil at that time. History bears out that there are times when the adage is indeed true that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In the 2016 presidential race, Donald Trump is the enemy of Hillary Clinton.

Dingle writes that she has changed her mind about support for abortion being a deal breaker position. I cannot agree with her. Instead, I side with John Piper, who wrote back in 1995, “I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office.” Now I should clarify that, supporting the freedoms which make our country the great country that it is prevent me from saying that I actually believe that such a position disqualifies a person from running for or holding that office, but I do believe that it disqualifies me from ever voting for such a person—and I think it should have the same impact for anyone who claims to be pro-life. Writing on The Gospel Coalition web site, Thomas Kidd wrote earlier this month, “Just what we know about her views on abortion and the rights of conscience should disqualify her, in my opinion, as a political option for Christians.” Despite Dingle’s best efforts, there is simply no way to claim to be pro-life and support a person who passionately defends a woman’s right to choose abortion.

Back in April Naselli wrote that if Trump and Clinton ended up being the nominees there would basically be four options for voters: (1) Don’t vote; (2) vote for Clinton; (3) vote for Trump; or (4) “vote for someone else who has no chance to win.”

I do not think number one or number two are real options for believers—or for anyone who believes that there are responsibilities that come along with being a citizen of the United States (and a citizen of heaven, for those in the “believer” category).  That leaves three and four. There are arguments to made for and against voting for Trump. I have discussed some of them already, and I will share just a couple of more thoughts from Russell Moore.

Again, in Christianity Today, Moore wrote this:

For starters, unless Jesus of Nazareth is on the ballot, any election forces us to choose the lesser of evils. Across every party and platform, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Still, the question is a valid one. Believing in human depravity doesn’t negate our sense of responsibility.

Moore also wrote this:

Can a candidate make promises about issues then do something different in office? Yes. Can a candidate present a sense of good character in public then later be revealed to be a fraud? Sure. The same happens with pastors, spouses, employees, and in virtually every other relationship. But that sense of surprise and disappointment is not the same as knowingly delegating our authority to someone with poor character or wicked public stances. Doing so makes us as voters culpable. Saying, “the alternative would be worse” is no valid excuse.

That is why, bottom line, I do not believe a Christian can vote for Hillary Clinton. Neither can someone who does not profess Christianity but does claim to be pro-life. Such a vote would be, in Moore’s words, “knowingly delegating our authority” to someone who has said she defends the right of women to kill their unborn children.

That still leaves the question of whether or not to vote for Trump.

There are plenty of intelligent arguments being made both for and against doing so. Many people I respect are passionately in favor of supporting Trump. Many others I respect are passionately opposed. Several months ago I said myself that I did not know how anyone who professes to be a Christian could support Donald Trump for president. At the time I said that there were other Republican candidates still in the race, but if I felt that way then can I change that position now? Should I? That brings me back to the question I asked near the beginning of this lengthy piece, “whether or not someone who is not an acceptable candidate at one time can become an acceptable candidate later when said candidate has not changed at all but the environment in which he is running has changed and the options have diminished.” As I said, I think that is Grudem’s position. I just need to determine whether or not it is mine.

Chediak suggests that voting for a third candidate—whether a proclaimed candidate or a write-in—is the appropriate choice. “By voting for neither Trump nor Clinton, we do not participate in our country’s decline. We lay the groundwork for a brighter day to come,” he says. David French, writing for National Review, says, “It is hard to face the fact that — on balance — Trump is no better than Hillary Clinton. Hillary is a dreadful politician, and Republicans have waited for years for a great candidate to take her on. They’re still waiting. It’s Democrat versus Democrat for president, and no amount of wishful thinking can change that sad reality.” And Matthew Franck, writing on thepublicdiscourse.com, a web site of The Witherspoon Institute, said this of Trump:

Was there ever a candidate more obviously unqualified for high public office, as measured by his dearth of relevant knowledge and experience, his willfulness and self-absorption, his compulsive lying and inconsistency, his manipulative using of other people, his smash-mouth rhetoric and low character? For anyone professing conservative principles, the first problem with Trump is that he is not one of us, has never been one of us, shows no sign or capacity of becoming one of us, and hardly cares to pretend to be one of us. Even “what about the Supreme Court?” has no grip on my conscience when I try to imagine Donald Trump in the Oval Office. I cannot trust him to choose judicial nominees wisely, and there are other things whose cumulative weight is greater even than this variable.

We haven’t even the consolation of thinking of Trump as a certain kind of Republican who is not actually conservative but who at least recognizes our vocabulary when he hears it. No, Trump would not know a conservative principle if it kicked him in the shins. This is a nominee who, in my estimation, cannot earn my vote even as a “lesser evil” or an “at least he’s not Hillary” candidate. I waver between believing that his defeat would be the worst thing to happen to our country and believing that his victory would be.

At the beginning of his piece Franck sets the stage by recounting being asked this: “If your vote were the deciding one in the election, with either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becoming president on the basis of your vote alone, for which one would you vote?” No one is ever actually in that position, of course, a fact that Franck acknowledges, and which leads him to his ultimate conclusion:

Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character. Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.

I understand Franck’s point and I think one’s own character and conscience certainly must be factors in how to vote. At the same time, loving God necessarily entails loving each other, and I do not feel it can be justified biblically to act in a way that could result in contributing to Hillary Clinton becoming the president. That means that Naselli’s fourth option—voting for someone who has no chance to win—is not an option at all if voting for that person will have the resulting impact of helping Clinton win. (See again Grudem’s point that voting for such a candidate is in essence a vote for Clinton).

Tony Reinke, by the way, added a few more options to the four voting choices Naselli presented. One of those was, “Vote utilitarian by choosing a major candidate based on who would appoint the best SCOTUS judges.” This argument is consistent with what Eric Metaxas said in a recent interview: “We need to take seriously the realization that the wrong people in the Supreme Court can effectively end our form of government. That’s why, for all the shortcomings, I would say we have no choice but to vote for Trump.” Reinke is not persuaded by this argument, though, saying “it remains difficult to know how many SCOTUS judges will be selected in the next four years, maybe only one (to fill Scalia’s vacancy). After last summer I have a hard time believing SCOTUS, in any forms, is little more than a codifier of public opinion.” I think that’s unlikely. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is probably not going to be able to serve another four years. Anthony Kennedy is 80 and Stephen Breyer will be 78 next week. So there is a high probability than the next president will appoint more than one justice to the court.

The lasting influence of SCOTUS justices is undeniable. It is no coincidence that the average age of the last four appointees—Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan—was just shy of 53. A Supreme Court justice can easily serve thirty years—longer than seven presidential terms. So this has to be a serious consideration.

That is why, combined with everything else I have said here, I believe that voting for Donald Trump is the right thing to do for voters who live in a state that is not a sure thing for Trump to win. There are plenty of states where the vote is going to be very close, and these states are likely to determine the outcome of the election. Recent elections have all been close in electoral votes. Some states, though, are not really “up for grabs.” I live in South Dakota, for example, and it was last won by the Democratic nominee in 1964. In 2012 Obama received only 40% of the vote in the state. California, on the other hand, has not voted Republican since 1988 and is highly unlikely to do so this year. But if you live in a state that could go either way—Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia among others—I believe voting for Trump is the right thing to do. I could vote for Trump with a clear conscience if I lived in one of those states because it would be the most effective step I could take to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president. It would, in other words, be me loving my neighbor by doing what I could to ensure that the worst candidate did not win the election. I am not certain that makes Trump a good candidate, but if doing what is best for the nation as a whole—which is another way of saying loving my neighbor—is what Grudem means by Trump being a good moral choice then I agree—within the confines of what I stated above.

For those, like me, who live in states where the outcome is unlikely to be a real race, though, I think voting your conscience is the right thing to do. Notice I did not say not voting is the right thing to do, because I do not see that ever being the appropriate choice, but voting for a third party candidate or a write-in candidate is justifiable in those situations, and if it will ease your conscience or help you sleep better, then it is definitely the right choice. In fact, perhaps even more than that, I think it is the right choice because it communicates effectively that you are concerned about this country—enough to be an involved citizen—and are not pleased with either of the two major party candidates that were nominated this year. If there is enough of that kind of voting there may well be attention paid. There is no way, though, that a third party candidate is going to win the election this November (assuming nothing drastic changes between now and then) and doing anything other than whatever you can do to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning simply cannot be an option.

June 29, 2015

Love Wins

Unless you live under a rock you have been already been inundated by news stories, blog posts, Facebook status updates and tweets about the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday making homosexual marriage legal in the United States.I could comment at length on the decision itself, and perhaps at some point I will. In reality, most of what I would say has already been shared in this space before in my warnings about the slippery slope we are on and where that will lead once we step onto it. With Friday’s ruling I believe we have stepped fully onto that slope–not gingerly or cautiously, but jumped on with both feet. As we slide down that slope we will pick up momentum and there is, sadly, no telling what kind of condition we will be in when we come to a crashing stop at the bottom.

Perhaps the most common hashtag over the past few days has been this one: #LoveWins. I have no idea how many times it has been tweeted or otherwise posted around social media but I suspect it would be in the millions. President Obama and Vice President Biden both tweeted it. Hillary Clinton tweeted it with instructions on how to get a free bumper sticker from her presidential campaign that features the word HISTORY in the ubiquitous rainbow color scheme of the homosexual movement. Above the bumper sticker was the headline “All love is equal.” STOP-Homophobia.com tweeted “It’s only a matter of time before #LoveWins worldwide.” Coca-Cola was one of many companies quick to embrace the ruling and be sure everyone knows that they celebrate the decision, and Facebook made it possible for uses to place a rainbow-colored overlay over their profile pictures in a show of support.

The problems here are almost innumerable, so I am not going to get into many of them. Let me just say this briefly. The definition of marriage, and the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, has nothing to do really with love. Love is both an emotion and a decision, and it is something that many people feel and have toward many other people. Whether or not someone loves someone else is not the only necessary ingredient for marriage. (Indeed, one could argue whether or not it even is a necessary ingredient, but that is a completely different conversation). That “love” seems to be what everyone is celebrating with this decision is part of that momentum with which we are hurtling down the slippery slope toward a high velocity collision at the bottom. If marriage will be based and defined solely on whether or not people love each other than we have–as I have warned repeatedly before–obliterated any grounds on which we could now restrict marriage to a man and a woman, two men or two women. How could we now say that if a man and three women love each other they cannot be married? How can we say that if an adult and child love each other they cannot be married? If someone claimed to be in love with a dog, how could we not allow that person to marry that dog? Anyway, enough on that; it is not really my point here today.

What troubles me most of all about the #LoveWins mess is that it distorts what love really is. I will not delve too deeply into that right now either, though. Instead, I want to focus on the fact the love won a long, long time ago. Actually, Love won, and God is Love. In the beginning, God created humans with a free will. If I were God, I would have seriously considered nixing that idea I think, particularly since God’s omniscience means He was well aware of what we would do with that free will. That free will led to Eve yielding to Satan’s temptation, Adam following her lead, and the sin nature that each of us is now born with. That free will God gave us paved the way for every sin we have ever committed, every decision we (collectively) have made to reject God completely or to reject His instructions and guidelines periodically or consistently. It was because God loves us that He gave us a free will; He would rather be loved by those who have chosen to love and follow Him than by legions of human robots who have no choice but to love and obey.

More importantly, God’s love is so great that when sin did separate us from Him He decided to send His only Son to pay a penalty we could never pay–a perfect, sinless blood sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. When Jesus Christ was crucified, paying for your sins and mine, when He was buried and rose again, conquering sin, death, hell and Satan, love won. Satan cannot win. He still fights on with dogged determination but even knows how the story ends. Our understanding of love from a human perspective is distorted, perverted and skewed by selfish desires and the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. God IS Love, and His love is unfathomable. We can understand it enough to appreciate it and accept it, but the realities of its scope and depth and breadth are incredible. I have addressed this here before as well, and it would be easier for to you just read God’s Love Is than for me to restate what I think has already been well articulated. What I want to leave with here is this: Yes, Love Won, but not on Friday when five people in black robes decided to redefine marriage. Love Won over two thousand years ago when Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. Love Won from the moment God spoke the universe into existence. The approval of a redefinition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry is not evidence of love; rather, it is evidence of the workings of Satan and of man’s desire to remake truth to fit his own wants and whims. Despite our best efforts to ignore, change or destroy His Truth, God’s Truth and God’s Love are the same today as they have always been and as they will always be. Not because of the SCOTUS decision, but in spite of it, Love Wins.

January 26, 2013

“What difference…does it make?”

Filed under: Politics/Current Events — jbwatson @ 9:35 pm
Tags: , , ,

Earlier this week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before Congress on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. Her testimony is late in coming as a result of health issues she had at the end of the 2012 calendar year, but the delay as served only to make it that much more anticipated. Finally, just two days after Barack Obama was sworn in for a second term, and with it already common knowledge that she will leave her post as SecState just as soon as Senator John Kerry is confirmed as her successor, Mrs. Clinton provided her testimony. It is easy to find transcripts of her testimony on line, or videos of the testimony, as well as, I am sure, countless commentaries and editorials on what she had to say. And while I have not read any of those, I am going to add one more of my own.

What the U.S. knew and did not know prior to and during the attacks, and how the U.S. did or did not respond to the situation in Benghazi, has been debated and analyzed and dissected and regurgitated repeatedly since the attacks, and I am not going to weigh in on that specifically. Rather, I am going to address a specific comment made by the Secretary in response to questions from the members of the Senate committee.

Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, asked Mrs. Clinton about the motivations of the attack–about why the attack had occurred. Her response? “With all due respect, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk who decided they’d go kill Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened.” While I do not completely disagree with the last part of that statement, what happened is largely already know. Sure, there may be some details and specifics that have not yet been finalized, but we know at least the broad strokes of what happened. What we do not know, what the Senate committee wanted to know, and, I suggest, what the American people want to know, is why did it happen, and could it have been prevented?

What really strikes me, though, is the absurdity of Mrs. Clinton’s question, “What difference at this point does it make?” I wonder if she really believes that? I cannot imagine the families of the victims believe it. I cannot imagine that Mrs. Clinton, or President Obama, or anyone else, really believes that either. It simply makes a smartalecky way to deflect answering the question.

Imagine applying that approach in other scenarios…

When a reckless driver hits a car and kills everyone in it, why not take the approach, “They’re all dead. What difference does it make why the accident happened?”

When a student who has shown an inability or unwillingness to apply himself to his studies suddenly aces an exam or writes the best essay the teacher has ever written, why not say, “He got every question right! What difference does it make how he did it?”

When someone with no job is suddenly driving a luxury SUV, who cares how it happened, let’s just appreciate and congratulate them on the new wheels.

Why investigate athletes who do the seemingly inhuman? Were they doping? Were there performance-enhancing drugs involved? “What difference does it make?”

I could surely provide more examples, and I am sure you can think of plenty of your own. The point is, the why is always important. It matters if the driver was drunk or high. It matters if the student cheated. It matters if someone stole money or a vehicle. It matters if athletes alter the playing field and have an unfair advantage. And in regard to Benghazi, it matters why the U.S. was blaming the snippet of a video on YouTube for the attacks. It matters why the requests for support were unanswered. It matters why the U.S. did not inspect the scene promptly.

So, contrary to what you might want to believe, or might want us to believe, Madame Secretary, it makes all the difference in the world. And if they have enough backbone to do their jobs, our elected officials will not stop asking the question until it has been answered.

Blog at WordPress.com.