Politics
Why I Will Vote For Donald Trump
All of my adult life I’ve been intrigued and involved in the leadership aspects of presidential politics in the US. Why?
First, I’m simply wired by God to care about leaders of nations. It’s a calling–a passion. Secondly, I’ve been a leader all my life and teach university courses on the subject. Third, I wrote my first book on presidential elections in 1976–and have followed them ever since. Finally, I believe that the president of the United States has a unique role to play in global morality, security and world missions.
I was very excited about this year’s election because many fine governors, senators, and business people had a chance in the presidential race. I believed five or six of them could make excellent leaders of an American renewal. One by one they were rejected by the voters.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump now appear to be the presumptive candidates.
Why will I vote for Donald Trump?
He was clearly not my first choice–not even close. That’s because my measure of presidential leadership, and all other forms of civic affairs, comes done to three vital characteristics (in order of importance).
1. Does the candidate have strong godly character? Character is the number one quality of leadership because leaders reproduce what they are and demand trust. Trust only comes from proven character over time.
2. Does the candidate have the necessary competence for the job–a resume of accomplishment? If the first quality focuses on the heart, the second analyzes a person’s skill set. A good leader is a strong motivator and delegator. They have a solid track record of accomplishing things through other people. They manage both resources and people well.
3. Does the candidate possess strong biblical policies (worldview)? After heart and skill, their mind-set is key. They need to see the world through a truthful, common sense lens and enact policies that serve people. Their job, on the highest of levels, is to protect the country from evil, elevate people to their God-given destinies and promote a strong social fabric.
Character, competence, and ideas. When we think of great presidents from Washington to Lincoln and Roosevelt to Reagan, these are the three pillars of the leadership triad we remember.
A year ago, I took this tri-focal lens into the 2016 presidential race and concluded that a number of Republican candidates were worthy of consideration. Over the months as I watched the campaign unfold, I settled on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as my top picks. Both were strong on all three facets, Hispanic (an historic novelty), and young (a plus for electability).
In the end, the Republican voters chose differently and elevated Donald Trump to presumptive nominee.
Here’s my quick take on Trump’s “triad” of qualifications:
- Character – Often weak, childish, and inconsistent. Strong points are work ethic and perseverance.
- Competence – High marks for business acumen and savvy. Low grades on some business principles including questionable ventures (casinos), bankruptcies, and frivolous lawsuits.
- Policies – Talks conservative but has a history of being liberal. Definitely not guided by principles or a moral code–and probably a mixed bag in the end.
Then there is Hillary Clinton. Character? Corrupt. Competence? Little leadership experience and a poor Secretary of States. Policies? Secular progressive, maybe a little more hawkish than President Obama on terrorism.
Yet, some who normally vote Republican may be voting for Hillary. Or staying home. They call themselves the #Never Trump folks. One that I respect is Erick Erickson. Here is his take on Trump:
“I still, however, will not be voting for Donald Trump. The choice between Clinton and Trump is like choosing smallpox or anthrax. I’ll pass on both.”
That’s a powerful metaphor. Small pox or anthrax. Sounds like two evils to me and the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, was fond of saying “Of two evils, choose neither.”
But people are not evils. I agree with Spurgeon that when forced to choose between murder and stealing, then it’s right to do neither. But people are not simple evil choices–unless you’re choosing between Hitler and Stalin. Then I might agree.
Let’s be honest and clear: Neither Hillary Clinton of Donald Trump are evil personified. They both have strengths but also many weaknesses. It would be more honest to say that they are not the best choices in character, competence, and policies.
Erickson continues:
“If the election comes down to a single vote nationally and that single vote is in Georgia, I will gladly accept the blame for Donald Trump losing. But I still suspect Trump will lose and that he will lose disastrously. The only thing, however, that will be more disastrous for the GOP than a Trump loss would be a Trump victory. It would be a win for sheer jackassery by the American public.”
“I would rather take blame for Trump’s loss…than endorse a candidacy that has done nothing but bring out the worst in people, elevated the petty vanities of narcissists, and emboldened a white nationalist subculture best left in the roach motel of American politics.”
I disagree with Erickson and all the other “NeverTrumps.” They’re reacting, not thinking long-term, and caught in the “pride” of their movement. It was started to stop Trump–a noble task during the primaries. But they failed. In things like this, Ronald Reagan reminded us a generation ago to “never say never.”
The #NeverTrump folks need to drop their pride. And here’s why. There is one primary reason that I will vote for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016:
The United States Supreme Court.
I don’t deny that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could be bad presidents due to the lack of the leadership triad. They are secularists–one a progressive and the other a regressive. They both drink from the pond of worldly principles and aspirations.
But here’s the big difference: If Hillary Clinton becomes president (or Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden if Hillary is indicted), the morals and security of our nation could be lost for a generation–or forever–with the 1-3 Supreme Court justices that she will likely choose. Any Democrat will choose a flaming liberal that will increase secular tyranny in the land.
Under a Clinton nominee: Abortion? Safe. Gun rights? Gone. Religious liberty? Poof! Obamacare? Saved. Secular progressives are trying with all their might to tear down the God-given rights of our Christian-based republic because they are motivated by dark forces and desire a one world government (no borders).
For all his faults, we know that Donald J. Trump will elect better justices than Hillary Clinton. Maybe far better.
Last week Trump released a list of eleven judges he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. The list includes several people often found on conservative wish lists, including Diane Sykes, William Pryor and Joan Larsen. Several of the judges were appointed by President George W. Bush, and many serve on state supreme courts with distinction.
Early reaction from congressional Republicans was positive, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) praising the presumptive GOP presidential nominee as having put forward an “impressive list of highly qualified jurists.”
“Understanding the types of judges a presidential nominee would select for the Supreme Court is an important step in this debate so the American people can have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court for the next generation,” he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the second-ranking Republican in the upper chamber, said Trump made a “smart move” releasing the names. “It’s reassuring for conservatives to know what he’ll be looking for were he elected president,” Cornyn told CNN.
I don’t like Donald Trump’s morals, marriages, personality, and many policies. But I’m going to pray for him and vote for him because of the importance of
The United States Supreme Court.
And I agree with the perspective of Pastor Carl Gallups, who’s also voting for Trump:
“There are many real questions for Christians. Who will best give us the opportunity to be real Christians? Which choice for president will best defend the Christian heritage, ideals and foundation of this nation? Which candidate will best defend America’s borders and security? Which candidate will most likely work hard to improve the economy and return industry, corporations, and jobs to America?”
“Which candidate is most likely to be most ‘friendly’ to the Christian community at large – as well as with Israel? Which candidate will most likely give those of us who are Christians and pastors the opportunities to address, fight, and possibly defeat some of the moral insanities that have been inflicted upon this nation in the last eight years? Which president do you want to see sitting across the table from the diabolic regimes of the world trying to hold back the flood of evil they wish to inflict upon the United States – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?”
Donald Trump is not a savior, Cyrus, or Nebuchanezzar. He’s the best of two questionable candidates. But, who knows. Maybe God could grab a hold of this man and use him for Kingdom purposes–especially if he surrounds himself with a great supporting cast.
Of course, what we really need in America is Jesus–in many more hearts and homes, an explosion of salvation and discipleship! In the meantime, it’s “occupy until I come” which includes the duty of voting.
I’ve made my civic decision on how I’m going to vote.
Now it’s your turn.
The Rise of the Secular Regressives
Nations normally die slowly when people turn away from their cultural foundations. Political parties are similar, even more closely reflecting the shifts in public thinking because they make up a smaller portion of the electorate.
The Republican Party morphed in 2016. The change has been coming for decades but catalyzed this year when a secular icon named Donald Trump ran for president. Trump brought records numbers of people into party of Lincoln–but many aren’t following the worldview of Honest Abe.
The Republican Party as we’ve previously known it is dead. Gone.
For now.
In its place we have the rise of the Secular Regressives.
I know I’m coining a new term. I don’t know whether it will stick. It’s a take-off from the now common phrase secular progressive made popular by Bill O’Reilly’s Culture Warrior book. SP is the “in vogue” name for liberalism. More on that and defining secular regressive in a moment.
First it might be helpful to discuss two words most Americans don’t understand. In fact, I bet both of the presumptive presidential nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, couldn’t define the difference between these words if asked in a Town Hall meeting. Yet, virtually all Americans knew the difference between them during the Revolutionary era and beyond.
Here’s your civics test of the day: What is the difference between a republic and a democracy?
Both terms go back to the time of ancient Greece when city-states began experimenting with popular rule instead of warrior kings. A republic is a society based on laws–the law is king, (Lex Rex) not the head honcho. It is a social compact tied to principles based on the rights of human beings.
Republics usually have some form of written agreement– like a constitution–which spells out those rights and limits the power of civil government. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic. We believe in the power of ideas over the power of magistrates. Democracies, on the other hand, are simply mob rule or majority vote. What the majority wants, the majority gets.
What’s wrong with that you say? Well, actually quite a bit. Majorities can be wrong–with devastating consequences. Two American examples will suffice:
- Slavery of African-Americans was tolerated in our nation for hundreds of years due to wrong majority-based thinking. Millions of blacks suffered.
- Abortion of innocent babies has been approved by majorities since 1973. Sixty-five million human beings have perished.
Yet, voting majorities are helpful in nations seeking self-determination. Democracy is not all bad–it’s probably better than having an evil king. But when majority voting or mob thinking (democracy) is not anchored to God-given human rights (republicanism), its effects are devastating.
Since governments are designed to protect us from evil, some forms of government are better than others. Monarchies are worst. They can go from good to bad in a heart-beat (literally). Respectable democracies go dark when the people become immoral and unthinking and approve bad stuff. But that usually takes time.
Republics are more just and stable because they tie a nation and its leaders to principles of right. The king can’t change the law at his whim. Nor can the people because they’re on a marijuana high when going to the polls. In a republic, the good laws of the land (based on a Constitution out-lining those principles) restrains both the leaders and the people from doing bad things.
The idea of biblically-based republican government is a gift from God that brings both justice and freedom to nations. But it only works when the people practice the principles in their own hearts and lives (self government).
Now a little history on America’s political parties–Democrat and Republican.
Those words first appear in American history in one party–the Democratic Republicans. It came into prominence in the 1790s with the election of Thomas Jefferson. The DRs were strong on “republic” (principles) and minored in “democracy” (voting). The Democratic Republicans were the most popular party in early America.
Eventually the DRs became the Democrats prior to the Civil War. In fact it was the democratic error of promoting slavery that led to the birth of the Republican Party in 1854. From then on, it’s basically been the Democrats versus the Republicans.
During the past 160 years, the Democratic Party evolved into the secular or liberal party of America. Secularism or atheism is really man-centered rules that are not anchored to biblical human rights. Majority votes (or judicial fiats) are what’s right or wrong, not “You shall not kill,” or “You shall not steal.”
During most of that period, the Republicans held onto their biblical view of God-given rights (Constitution). Thus, most Judeo-Christian oriented people and those of traditional or conservative bent voted Republican. Those who were more worldly or atheistic voted Democratic. The parties expressed two opposing worldviews.
They didn’t start that way. In the beginning both contained strong Judeo-Christian principles. In the 20th century, the Democrats devolved into an atheistic alternative.
The Republican Party has clung to the principles of our Judeo-Christian heritage for most of my lifetime. Those include the right to life, sanctity of marriage, the principles of limited government, fiscal discipline, strong national defense, defense of religious liberty, justice for criminals and compassion toward the needy. The Reagan presidency of the 1980s temporarily catapulted those ideas back into the mainstream veins of the national psyche.
Simultaneously, the Democratic Party became more and more secular—even militantly atheistic. They took prayer out of the public schools, legalized abortion on demand and, homosexual marriage, exploded the national debt, promoted radical environmentalism, race hustling, and finally bathroom bullies.
President Obama took mainstream secularism and militarized it. And remember: fascism, socialism and communism are only increasing shades of secular blue. In 2016, Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders won majority Democratic votes in 21 states!
But the Republicans weren’t far behind. Especially in Congress, the Republican elites were gazing at changing American demographics and decided to go secular. I call it Democrat-lite. That’s why there’s been little push back in Congress during the Obama years. Establishment Republicans are closer to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (socialists) than they are to Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz (biblical Christians).
Along comes Donald Trump—secular icon who’s been a liberal Democrat all his life but recently converted to some conservative principles (depending on the day). He wins the Republican nomination when the Christian base of the country becomes goggle-eyed over his swagger, straight-talk, and give-em-hell attitude.
What they failed to see is that Trump is fundamentally secular (worldly). Yes, he is not progressive in destroying biblical culture like Obama/Clinton/Sanders et al. But because he has no godly perspective for decision-making, Trump will lead the Republican Party to regress on many fronts:
- The Party Platform will be toned down in July.
- Planned Parenthood (lead abortionist) will stay in “government” business.
- Many deals will be struck with Democrats over trade, deficits, and even immigration.
- No moral evils will be reversed.
- The national debt will not be seriously tackled and the entitlement state will grow.
Instead of being renewed by believers in Christ and His freedom-giving ways, the Republican Party, and maybe the nation, will be led by secular regressives.
In 2016, for the first time in its history, no major political party will espouse the biblical, uniquely American way of liberty. Remaining at the gates will be secular progressives who are actively destroying the culture, along with the rise of the secular regressives who will, at the least, inhibit biblical renewal.
Much-respected political pundit Charles Krauthammer agrees. Here is his take on the secular regression of the Party of Lincoln:
“It marks the most radical transformation of the political philosophy of a major political party in our lifetime. The Democrats continue their trajectory of ever-expansive liberalism from the New Deal through the Great Society through Obama and Clinton today. While the GOP, the nation’s conservative party, its ideology refined and crystallized by Ronald Reagan, has just gone populist.”
“It’s an ideological earthquake. How radical a reorientation? Said Trump last week: “Folks, I’m a conservative. But at this point, who cares?”
“Who cares? Wasn’t caring about conservatism the very essence of the talk radio, tea party, grass-roots revolt against the so-called establishment? They cheered Cruz when he led the government shutdown in the name of conservative principles. Yet when the race came down to Cruz and Trump, these opinion-shaping conservatives who once doted on Cruz affected a studied Trump-leaning neutrality.”
Trump won…[He] doesn’t even pretend to have any principles, conservative or otherwise. He lauds his own “flexibility,” his freedom from political or philosophical consistency. And he elevates unpredictability to a foreign policy doctrine. The ideological realignment is stark. On major issues — such as the central question of retaining America’s global preeminence as leader of the free world, sustainer of Western alliances and protector of the post-World War II order — the GOP candidate stands decidedly to the left of the Democrat.”
“And who knows on what else? On entitlements? On health care? On taxes? We will soon find out. But as Trump himself says of being a conservative — at this point, who cares? As of Tuesday night, certainly not the GOP.”
It’s the rise of the secular regressives.
What is the Church in America to do when faced with these choices? How will I vote in November of 2016?
Stay tuned.
Evangelicals Vote for Judgment on America
May 4, 2016, may some day be described as the day America died. For me, that day, to quote Charles Dickens, was the “best of times and worst of times.”
That evening I attended the 25th celebration of Shirley Dobson’s leadership of the National Day of Prayer in Washington, D.C. Her celebration was the BEST.
But prior to the evening banquet and prayer time, I was talking with Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert about the past two days he had barn-stormed Indiana with Ted Cruz. While we were talking, the Trump victory in the Indiana Republican primary was announced.
Our hearts sank as we realized that Ted Cruz–the “closest to Reagan” candidate in a generation–had been eliminated.That feeling was the WORST.
This will be the first of a trilogy on the 2016 elections. The second article will discuss how the Republican Party has devolved. The third will state who I plan to support. You may be surprised.
But first, how Evangelicals have voted for judgment on America.
You may think it hyperbole to talk about a day a nation died. Societies usually die slowly, with many slow cuts increasing bleeding until the civilization finally expires.
What prompted the analogy was a recent re-read of Thomas Cahill’s classic How the Irish Saved Civilization. It’s one of my favorite short histories and begins with a scene from December 31, 406 A.D. On that rather routine day, the Rhine River froze solid enough for vast hordes of barbarians to cross over from pagan Europe in a mass invasion of the Roman Empire.
The barbarians had been coming in drips and drivels for years. Roman civilization had also been dying for decades via high taxation and the empty pursuit of human pleasures.
Cahill postulates, “Rome fell because of inner weakness, either social or spiritual; or Rome fell because of outer pressure–the barbarian hordes. What we can say with confidence is that Rome fell gradually and that the Romans for many decades scarcely noticed what was happening.”
Less than four years later, Alaric the Goth stood at the gates of Rome. Caesar dispatched his envoys to make a deal with the barbarian commander. What would be the price of his departure? Cahill recounts the scene:
“Alaric told them: his men would sweep through the city, taking all gold, all silver, and everything of value that could be moved. They would also round up and cart off every barbarian slave. But protested the hysterical envoys, what will that leave us?”
“Alaric paused. ‘Your lives.'”
In that pause, Roman security died and a new world was conceived. On August 24, 410 Alaric sacked the city of Rome and the Dark Ages began. But the tipping point may well have been December 31, 406.
Fast forward seventeen hundred years.
Western civilization and American leadership have been expiring for decades. There has not been a major spiritual awakening for over 150 years. For two hundred years prior, seasons of national decline had been gloriously renewed via revivals in the 1730s-40s, early 1800s, and the Great Revival of 1857.
Those seasons of renewal and moral transformation kept the America nation centered on its belief in God. We reaffirmed the wisdom of His ways in public and private morality. “In God We Trust” gave the United States the courage to lead the world in fighting for freedom.
Then came the 20th century with its biblical criticism, the rise of militant atheism, the growth of Big Government, and the cultural rebellion of the 60s. Today, we are hurtling down slope of moral depravity where even young girls are battling for privacy in using public restrooms.
Sixty years ago, the collapse of the American foundations was stayed by the Jesus Revolution of the 60s and 70s (not a full-blown revival), the Washington For Jesus day of prayer and repentance in 1980, and the Reagan Revolution that followed.
These events at least retarded our Republic’s demise.
But in the 21th century we are running out of time. Moral relativism has poisoned the culture, secularists control education, the US is a weakening giant in its world role and stands arrogantly destitute before a Holy God.
2016 could have been a season of renewal–similar to 1980. As I’ve chronicled, many prayer movements exploded this year to call God’s people to repentance. In the 2016 presidential race, a number of God-fearing candidates stepped forward to call the nation back to its biblical moorings (Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, to name a few).
One who rose to the top of the pack was Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz was young, Hispanic, a gifted orator and debater, and put together the best national ground-game of any candidate. He then weathered the crowded Republican field to challenge populist billionaire Donald Trump for the Republican nomination.
After an upset win in Wisconsin, it looked like Cruz was in striking distance of overcoming Mr. Trump. Then came the real estate mogul’s huge win in New York and a series of victories in the relatively liberal confines of the Northeast. Indiana would be Ted Cruz’s “Alamo” for blunting Trump’s momentum and taking the Republican race to the national convention.
While I was talking to Rep. Gohmert on May 4, the Indiana primary arrived. Indiana contained a large population of evangelical Christians. In Wisconsin, biblical values voters had delivered for Ted Cruz. I was hopeful for the same result in the Hoosier state–and many were in prayer.
Then Indiana voted. Trump – 51%. Cruz – 43%. The race was over. American would not have the chance to elect a “Reagan-like” president in 2016 with strong faith in God and a belief in limited government.
Why did Ted Cruz lose? Because the Church did not vote its faith. And when the Church does not rise to be the salt and light of a culture–including elections–the nation is abandoned to the judgment of ungodly forces.
But it was not just the ignorance of Indiana Christians. Prior to the Hoosier primary, The Washington Post, not usually a champion of traditional values, stated:
“One of the most surprising parts of the 2016 election has been evangelical Christian support for Donald Trump. In the 20 states where primary or caucus exit polls have been conducted so far, Trump has won an average of 36 percent of the vote from white “born-again or evangelical Christians,” good for a plurality in 12 states and only slightly lower than his support (38 percent) among all other Republican voters. Many in the evangelical community have wondered how their religious brethren could possibly back a twice-divorced candidate whose commitment to moral and cultural conservatism appears shaky at best.”
“The key to understanding Trump’s support among evangelicals is to realize that some evangelicals’ commitment to the faith is shaky, too. Trump does best among evangelicals with one key trait: They don’t really go to church. In short, the evangelicals supporting Trump are not the same evangelicals who have traditionally comprised the Christian Right and supported cultural warriors such as Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz.”
Conclusion? Many evangelicals don’t go to church, and those that do don’t vote their worldview and faith.
That “barrenness of knowledge” among American Christians had first been seen when the primaries went through the southern states. This was where Ted Cruz was expected to have a “firewall” of support after winning Iowa but losing to Trump in New Hampshire.
In the South, evangelicals make up fifty to sixty percent of the Republican primary electorate. (They are 25% of the entire US population). Yet, for example, in South Carolina 34 % of evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump, and in Georgia, Trump got 39% of the “Church” vote.
To be fair, in the Republican primaries so far, 60% of evangelical Christians have not voted for the secular Trump. But nearly forty percent have.
That’s the difference this year. Those millions of professing Christians, by their unwise and unthinking votes, will give the White House to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton (if she’s indicted–then Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden).
This means that for the first time in 240 years, Americans will not have a choice of a president with either a born again faith or biblical worldview. That void will only accelerate our problems and bring judgment (justice) on a back-slidden nation. The downward spiral of unbelief, morals, debt, division, and weakness will snowball.
We had our chance on May 4, 2016. The Church blew it–there is no one else to blame. In 2008 and 2012 many American Christians didn’t vote at all. In 2016 they voted poorly.
In free nations, you get what you deserve (vote for). Is there any doubt that our civilization deserves judgment?
Two choices remain. Repentance or national implosion. If we continue to go the second route, then a modern-day Alaric may soon appear at our nation’s door.
Next week: The Rise of the Secular Regressives