President Donald Trump points to supporters after speaking at his Black Voices for Trump rally Friday, Nov. 8, 2019, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)
Earlier in the week, I wrote an article on Trump, morality, and why beltway preening about the two so often falls on deaf ears. It was largely in response to Christianity Today’s editorial calling for Trump’s impeachment, but was also prompted by some postings I’d seen from a certain conservative who has apparently appointed himself the moral arbiter of conservatism. I’ll let you do the math on that one.
In my piece, I expressed some areas of morality that the D.C. establishment always ignore, such as terrible foreign policy decisions that often lead to massive loss of life with no clear goal. Along the way that same establishment makes millions pushing and advising on the mostly failed excursions.
Let’s also take foreign policy, as that’s another good comparison. There’s a massive blind spot among the D.C. prognosticators on morality when it comes to foreign policy. What’s more immoral? Joe Biden’s pursuit of an ill-advised war in Syria (led by Barack Obama) that led to over half a million people dead? Or Trump making a mean tweet about Justin Trudeau? Is it more immoral to empower the Iranian regime to further fund terrorism and oppress their people? Or for Trump to rant about NATO members not paying their fair share? I’d posit that the former of each of those contrasts is far more immoral than Trump’s inability to control his mouth at times.
I ended with this thought about why so many largely moral people will end up voting for Trump in 2020.
No one is trying to make an argument that Trump himself is an overly moral person. But that’s not the question most will be asking when deciding who to vote for in 2020. The question remains ones of Trump’s policies compared to who he’s running against. While the D.C. establishment ask us to ignore their own immorality, the rest of us will weigh, compare, and make a decision that’s in our own interests. That’s the entire purpose of electing a secular political leader. It’s not to signal one’s virtue or bestow aspects of quazi-salvation via voting.
Furthering that point, Ben Shapiro covered this topic on his show yesterday. I think it’s worth sharing because he succinctly (over the course of about 10 minutes) lays out the case for why you can hold moral objections to politicians but still vote for your interests in the end.
It’s cued up to when the segment starts (19:06).
One of the things Shapiro covers is the false dichotomy presented by Chistianity Today, which tries to equate voting for Trump with idolatry. Is it possible some take their love of Trump too far? Sure, but that’s true of almosy every politician that’s ever been in office. Regardless, it’s still perfectly moral to chose a representative who’s going to enact policies one believes to restore the social fabric and protect liberty. This is especially true with life and death issues like abortion in play.
Shapiro also tackles the hypocrisy involved in these discussions. Does anyone really think the left gives two shakes about Trump’s past affairs or mean tweets? Of course not. The left is all on board with sexual immorality. They not only accept it (see Bill Clinton), but push it as a lifestyle choice. About five minutes ago, the same people trashing Trump now were fist bumping him at his wedding. There’s no actual moral principle at play here. This is all really just about Republican policies and ideology.
How do we know? Just look at how they treat Mike Pence. No honest person believes that if Trump ceased to exist that the left would say “welp, those Republicans are really doing well by having a nice, high character family man as President, let’s lay off.” They be just as, if not more vicious.
Anyway, I’ll leave the rest for the video to cover, so be sure to check it out.