Repairing the Word

One of the richest principles of Jewish ethics is a concept called tikkun olam, which loosely translates to "repairing the world." People know it best from the Aleinu, a prayer Orthodox Jews recite three times daily. The prayer Aleinu (“It is our duty to praise”) is the closing prayer of the morning, afternoon and evening service. It consists of two prayers, Aleinu and V’al Kein. Some believe Tanna Rav in the third century AD in Babylonia wrote Aleinu for Rosh Hashanah services. Rav was the first to institute the Aleinu into the service.  The full citation is l'takken olam b'malkhut Shaddai, often translated, "to perfect the world under God's sovereignty." Here is the immediate context of the prayer. 

Therefore we put our hope in You, Adonai our God,
to soon see the glory of
Your strength, to remove all idols from the Earth,
and to completely cut off
all false gods; to repair the world, Your holy
empire.

(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/aleinu.html for the full, beautiful prayer.) 

Without the full context, one could assume tikkun olam is something we endeavor to do on our own, as though we were some sort of cosmic carpenter, well-stocked toolbelt buckled around our waist, as we endeavor to smooth out the rough spots on the planet. In fact -- as the words of the Aleinu make clear -- faithful Jews view all their good works as being carried out under the oversight and in the name of a loving God. They are not solo operators, but rather numberless laborers on the divine work crew, with the Lord as construction manager. God will repair the world through the faithful response of the people of God.

It is no different for Christians.

Goody-two-shoes, Do-gooders, and all that

Has anyone ever called you a "goody two-shoes?" It is usually not a compliment, given that the reason someone receives the title is that someone is so good so as to be annoying to regular, imperfect people. I often wonder from where we get such expressions. It turns out it comes from a 1765 children's book. It was about a poor, orphan girl named Margery Meanwell (she means well, get it?) who walks around forlornly with only one shoe until a wealthy benefactor gives her a new pair of shoes, after which she runs around town knocking on doors and telling everyone she can find that she now has "two shoes." See? Annoying.

Of course, there are other variations on being a goody two-shoes. You can be a "do-gooder," which conjures up images of the old cartoon Canadian Mountie Dudley Do-Right, or you can be a "goody-goody," which sounds like something that fell from an ice cream truck.

Paul advises that followers of Jesus not grow weary in doing good. We will reap the fruit of such persistence in doing good, if we do not give up. He also says that we are to do good to everyone, whether they follow Jesus or not. You can read this in Galatians 6:9-10.

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy and host of the cancelled television quiz show "Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?," is well known for his "You might be a redneck" one-liners. Think about how people might complete the sentence, "You might be a Christian if ..."

How would a Christian respond? What is a biblical response to this sentence?

You might be a Christian if you love God with your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

You might be a Christian if you see by faith that God was in Christ reconciling the world to God.

You might be a Christian if you ponder the deeper meaning of the Ten Commandments.

You might be a Christian if you are growing in your faith, hope, and love.

You might be a Christian if you are growing the fruit of the Spirit, such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, self-control.

You might be a Christian if you persist in doing good to people, whether they deserve it or not.

You might be a Christian if you are engaged in ministry through the spiritual gifts God has given you.

You might be a Christian if you identify with the Body of Christ and if Christ is taking shape in you.

How might a non-believer respond? David Kinnaman’s book, Unchristian (2008) might suggest the following.

"You might be a Christian if you are against everything."

You might be a Christian if you are hypocritical.

You might be a Christian if tell everyone to “get saved.”

You might be a Christian if you are anti-homosexual.

You might be a Christian if you lead a sheltered life.

You might be a Christian if you are too political.

You might be a Christian if you are judgmental.

Mugwumps and other Do-Gooders

In the 1890s, “goo-goo” was a term used as shorthand for the members of the "Good Government Clubs" that rose up in opposition to the political "machines" that dominated the governments of many cities and states at the time (and, in many places, still do). Their opponents gave them the name. The City Club of New York City sponsored “Good Government Clubs” in every assembly district. Their efforts led to the election of a reform mayor in 1894, a setback for the political machine known as Tammany Hall. Mugwumps and Progressives also received the label “goo-goo.” The term is a mildly derisive label for high-mind citizens or reformers. The term goo-goo still has political currency. It has changed little in meaning since critics first used it in the late 19th century.

The presidential campaign of 1884 was between Democrat Grover Cleveland and Republican James G. Blaine. It made the goo-goos prominent. The reason was that the Democrat here made quite a name for himself by opposing on the political machines of the time, Tammany Hall. This endeared him to the mugwumps, a name their critics gave to them. Blaine had many enemies within the Republican Party, including the mugwumps. Their opposition called them “mugwumps.” Cartoons showed them with their face one side of the fence and their “wump” on the other side of the fence. They tried to be somewhat independent in a time when partisanship demanded that you be one side of the political divide or the other.  

Several historians of the 1960s and 1970s portrayed the Mugwumps as members of an insecure elite, one that felt threatened by changes in American society. These historians often focused on the social background and status of their subjects, and the narratives they have written share a common outlook. Mugwumps tended to come from old Protestant families of New York and New England, and often from inherited wealth. They belonged to or identified with the emerging business and professional elite, and were often members of the most exclusive clubs. Yet they felt threatened by the rise of machine politics, one aspect of which was the spoils system and by the rising power of immigrants in American society. They excelled as authors and essayists, yet their writings indicated their social position and class loyalties. In politics, they tended to be ineffectual and unsuccessful, unable and unwilling to operate effectively in a political environment where patronage was the norm.

From another perspective, however, "Machine politics" is another way of describing a political entity led by an individual or small group that maintains control over a city through a hierarchical system of patronage, rewards and punishments. The machine is more interested in benefiting itself than the public. Think of it as a kind of legal, political mafia, if you will.

In a more recent work, historian David Tucker (1998) attempts to rehabilitate the Mugwumps. According to Tucker, the Mugwumps embodied the liberalism of the 19th century, and their rejection by 20th-century historians, who embraced the government intervention of the New Deal and the Great Society, is not surprising. To Tucker, their eloquent writings speak for themselves, and are testament to a high-minded civic morality.

The "goo-goos" challenged the political machines through a series of reform movements driven by idealism and a desire for change. They were annoying with a good reason, and some politicians who try to go against the system today still retain the label. Being a "goo-goo" can be a very good thing because it turns the focus from what is expedient and self-serving to what is right and what benefits everyone.

Charles Francis Adams, Jr., president of the Union Pacific Railroad and the American Historical Association

Henry Adams, author

Edward Atkinson, entrepreneur and business executive

Louis Brandeis, future Supreme Court Justice

Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University

Josiah Willard Gibbs, professor of mathematical physics at Yale University

E. L. Godkin, editor of The Nation

Seth Low, Republican mayor of Brooklyn NY in 1884; lost his party's support due to his backing Cleveland, and stepped down rather than attempting to run for a third term in 1885

Thomas Nast, political cartoonist

Carl Schurz, former Senator from Missouri and Secretary of the Interior, editor of the Saturday Evening Post

Moorfield Storey, lawyer and NAACP president from 1909 to 1915

William Graham Sumner, social scientist, Yale University

Mark Twain, author, self-identified as a Mugwump in his essay, Christian Science

Horace White, editor of the Chicago Tribune

Do Sweat the Small Stuff?

A doctor who did delicate procedures on the hearts of infants had tremendous success – until he had a stretch in which several babies died after apparently successful surgeries. He and a colleague puzzled about this after a surgery. Both liked NASCAR, so they turned on a race. In that context, they saw the speed and precision of the pit crew in a new light. You see, one of the most dangerous times in any surgery is in the hand-off from surgery to ICU. At that time, you unhook and re-hook machines and tubes properly. Goldman and Elliott began to look at every detail of the handoff procedure, coming up with a seven- page manual of processes and drilling team members on their responsibilities. Dr. de Leval got some other surgeons involved in looking at the problem and commissioned a study that confirmed his theory. The study, published in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, determined that, of course, big mistakes cause big problems. However, more often the small, unnoticed and uncorrected mistakes by medical teams add up and correlate strongly to bad outcomes for patients. The pediatric ICU chief at Great Ormond Street, Dr. Goldman, concurred. “Our handoffs were haphazard,” he says. The result of the improvements was that technical errors fell 42percent and information errors fell 49percent over a two-year period.

The bottom line? Everything matters, maybe especially the little things. Joseph A. Michelli also reminded of me this recently as I read his The Starbucks Experience. He details how Starbucks has paid attention to every part of their process and stores. In a similar vein, some of you might remember a wonderful little book called “Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff.” It has wonderful advice for keeping things in our lives in perspective. Like all wisdom, however, in a different context it will fail. Thus, in some circumstances, it pays to sweat the small stuff, whether you are in the last lap of a Grand Prix, developing a successful business, or in the final stages of surgery on a 3-year-old heart. It is all about the process, all about the team, all about everyone knowing their responsibility and executing with precision.

In the church, we must not forget small things like dealing gently with each other in our missteps, sharing the burdens of each other, remembering we reap what we sow, and doing what is right. I am sure you can think of others. Such qualities are important in family, with friends, and in the church. In our most intimate relationships, the small stuff matters.

Difficulty of Growing Fruit

I came across an article about fruit, especially the new shape of fruit that was just interesting to me.

Of course, fruit comes in many shapes and sizes. Some are spherical -- like oranges, blueberries and grapes. Others are oblong -- like mangoes and papayas. Still others are apple- or banana-shaped like ... apples and bananas.

 Some farmers, though, are challenging our assumptions about the shape of fruit.

Watermelons, for example, no longer need to be the rounded oblong shape with which we are most familiar. Go to the right market, and you may find square watermelons grown by botanical artists. At a restaurant, the cucumbers in your salad might appear heart-shaped rather than round, due to the produce shaping of another farmer.

While amazing, forming produce into basic shapes like squares and hearts is just the beginning.

One agricultural expert has developed a process where pears -- having long been pear-shaped -- can now arrive at your farmer's market in the shape of little Buddhas. They can shape the arms and facial features in such a well-defined way that the Buddha appears to be in a prayer-like, meditative state.

These fruits look like beautiful little sculptures or carvings, but people use no knives to create them. Farmers grow these pears this way.

To grow square watermelons and Buddha-shaped pears, farmers use specially designed molds they attach to the fruit when it first appears. As the young fruit matures, it grows into the mold, taking on the shape of the inside of the tool.

When the fruit is ripe, the farmer removes the mold. The fruit retains the shape of the mold, allowing the farmer to deliver a square watermelon, heart-shaped cucumber or Buddha-shaped pear to the market.

With or without the mold, producing fruit is no easy task. Because of our distance from the farm or orchard, many of us have lost our appreciation for just how difficult this process is. We simply go to the local grocery story and pick up whatever fruit we like, at a reasonable price. It is all right there before us and we can receive it instantly.

If you are acquainted with your New Testament, you have probably read the passage in the letter of Paul to the Galatians about the fruit of the Spirit in Chapter 5. Of course, there is no market where we can acquire the fruit of the Spirit -- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Instead, we need to become orchard keepers, cultivating these virtues within us.

Apologetics of Virtue

           

From my knowledge of history, it seems as if the public promotion of atheism goes in spurts. It will be quite “in” to say you are an atheist. Over the past few years, that has been the case. Especially since 9/11, atheism has seemed like an attractive option.  

• Richard Dawkins The God Delusion has sold 8.5 million copies, spending a year on the New York Times Best Seller List.

• Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great became a number-one New York Times Best Seller.

• Bill Maher’s film Religulous was the highest-grossing documentary of 2008. 

            New Atheism is hot right now … and lucrative. It lumps every religion together. Further, the “atheist” rarely looks seriously at the harm done by secular forces in this world, such as communism, fascism, and other ideologies. They do not call for the abandonment of politics or political ideology because of their misuse, but they are sure are willing to do so with religion.

            Newsweek named Rabbi David Wolpe’s “#1 Pulpit Rabbi in America.” Wolpe’s book Why Faith Matters is his response to the new atheism movement. Quite honestly, here is a book I wish I had written. He is not bombastic with his opponents. He has debated some of them and has a good relationship with them. However, he thinks their discussion of religion has completely missed the positive benefits of religion. The book is decidedly not a “philosophical” defense of “religion.” Rather, he writes about how God, or belief in God, changes the lives of people. He cites the apologetic power of religion’s gifts to society: interdependent community, a sense of social responsibility, a commitment to charity, believing in God.

            One way to think of this approach is as an apologetic of virtue. The word “apologetic” does not refer to the need to apologize. Theologians can provide an “apologetic” for the Christian faith, meaning a defense of the faith. A “virtue apologetic” suggests that the strongest argument for Christianity is other Christians. Christians as individuals and gathered into communities are to be signs of the redemption God is bringing to this world in Christ. We are often a weak sign. Our light flickers and dims due to our mistakes, sins, and copying of the values of the culture. Yet, we as individuals and communities of faith have the power to be (rather than make) a strong argument for the Christian faith.

            The virtue apologetic crystallized for Wolpe early in his ministry career. In a story of inadequacy relatable to many clergy, he tells of being called to the hospital bedside of an elderly woman to offer final prayers for the dying. He took her comatose hand but felt like a fraud. Who was he to shepherd a soul to the edge of the next world? Dutifully, he proceeded to pray familiar words anyway, letting their power carry him. Talking to his wife about it afterward, Wolpe confessed his feelings of inadequacy. “You’re right,” she said. “You’re unworthy. Anyone would be unworthy doing such a thing. That’s okay, though. It’s not you doing it. It’s being done through you.” Wolpe writes, “That was a pivotal moment for me. Suddenly it became clear to me that we bring light into this world not as a source but as a prism — it comes through us. As electricity requires a conduit, so spirit moves through human beings to touch others in crucial moments. As soon as I stepped out of my own way, the prayer felt real. I could believe in blessing when I felt that it did not depend on me.”

            Novelist Edith Wharton, in her poem “Vesalius In Zante,” put the same idea this way:  

So knowledge come, no matter how it comes!

No matter whence the light falls, so it fall!

Truth's way, not mine--that I, whose service failed

In action, yet may make amends in praise.

Fabricius, Cesalpinus, say your word,

Not yours, or mine, but Truth's, as you receive it!

You miss a point I saw? See others, then!

Misread my meaning? Yet expound your own!

Obscure one space I cleared? The sky is wide,

And you may yet uncover other stars.

For thus I read the meaning of this end:

There are two ways of spreading light: to be

The candle or the mirror that reflects it.

I let my wick burn out--there yet remains

To spread an answering surface to the flame

That others kindle. 

Turn me in my bed.

The window darkens as the hours swing round;

But yonder, look, the other casement glows!

Let me face westward as my sun goes down.

Father's Day 2016 Reflection

Being a good dad does not come easily. It is messy, tiring, and it tests you. We live in a time when the culture implies the unimportance of dad. Fathers are not perfect, and that is okay. Show up, be strong, and be the father your family needs.

Being the kind of dad whose kids will one day remember him with fondness and joy is hard work. After all, if Shakespeare is right, 

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 2, 1620 

Being the kind of dad who, although being far from perfect, still manages to love and lead his children well is no easy task.

            We have all heard or experienced “over-bearing” fathers. Maybe we need some “under-bearing” fathers. Children need fathers who are behind, beside, beneath, and going before them. Fathers need to bear up their children in a way that offers support and encouragement. They lead by example. Under-bearing fathers parent more by who they are and how they relate to their children than they do by anything else.

            If you are a Christian parent, one concern ought to be how one can make Christ the center of the home. Each family may answer that question differently, but here are some general characteristics:

1.         Joy—Every family will encounter trials and hardships, but there is no circumstance that can rob us of our joy if we know that the key to our present welfare and future destiny lies in Christ alone.         

  2.       Orderliness—As the apostle Paul says, "God is not the author of confusion but of peace" (I Corinthians 14:33).                                      

3.         Grace—A Christian home should be a safe place to mess up. Family members need to be reminded that love, not perfection, is the goal.                               

4.         Service—A Christian home is tempered and flavored with acts of kindness, respect, humility and love.                                

5.         Spiritual Disciplines—A Christ-centered home provides an environment in which every member of the family learns how to live by studying Scripture, praying and spending time in God's presence.                   

6.         God's Purposes—A Christian home is a place where the family's goals are founded upon His values and the vision for the future is consistent with His plan.

Presidential Election 2016 in July

If you are among those who think these two may still not be the nominee, my apologies. I think that ship has sailed. If I am wrong, I will be happily wrong.

This has been a difficult election cycle for me. I have never been so disappointed in both political parties. I have tuned out of the "hot medium" of television and radio for several months, and this has led to a much happier few months. I have kept up with the political process through the "cool medium" of articles, reading articles that I think have tried to offer some perspective on the nature of this election cycle.

I am quite disappointed in the political class of both political parties. I believe the country faces some important challenges. In reading some presidential biographies, I think one could make a strong case that the political class failed the country during the Jackson Era, largely because of the dominance of Jackson and his circle. Its failure led to the Civil War. The political class can fail is my point, and the result can be disaster.

Nothing I write here has the design of offending those who are enthusiastic for either Hillary or Donald. For the reasons offered below, I cannot join you in your enthusiasm. To state the obvious, those who do not like Trump do no favors to the "stop Trump" movement when they engage in violent behavior. Personally, I think the language of his opponents contributes to this. Calling him racist, misogynist, and fascist stokes the fires of violence, even if such charges may have an element of truth in them. When opponents are willing to pay persons to engage in such rioting at Trump events, it solidifies those who are for Trump that they are on the right track. For the reasons offered below, as much as I dislike Donald, I dislike Hillary just as much.

We have two candidates who have high negatives. Apparently, if you have high negatives, the political strategy is to focus on the negatives of your opponent. The strategy is that as bad as people may think you are, the other candidate is worse, so you are willing to cast a vote on that basis. We can expect, therefore, a lot of negative campaigning over the next few months. American primary goers and superdelegates have opted for the two candidates with the highest negatives.

I am going to have four sections to this blog. The first will share some of my general philosophical commitments regarding governance. For me, it is important, in the heat of a campaign, to think and pray through your basic political commitments. The second will focus on Hillary. The third will focus on Donald. The fourth offers an interesting reflection on the political landscape.

First, I offer some political Perspectives
I am a political conservative in the mold of George Will, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan. As such, I was not impressed by either of the Bush presidencies. In fact, if Party leaders listen, they will hear much frustration with the direction the Bush family has taken the GOP. Do not get me wrong. I have no doubt that they are good and honorable people. In this, I disagree with the Left assessment. Yet, I was among those hesitant about both Afghanistan and Iraq. My reasoning was that I did not think it wise for a Western-style democracy to engage deeply in the Middle East. I do not think Islam there is compatible with democracy. My hope is that The Donald has at least brought some humility to the neo-conservative mentality that America should use its military to spread democratic institutions. I also hope that people who used to be movement conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh will re-think their position on Trump. More than that, their constant attacks on the Establishment, represented by Paul Ryan and the Senate leadership, needs some re-thinking. The Establishment has brought, under the Obama Presidency, majorities in the House and Senate, Governorships, and state legislatures. Mona Charen defends the establishment against Trump in a powerful way. Although she does not mention Rush and Hannity, she addresses herself to their diatribe against the Washington elected officials. At the same time, the Establishment needs to listen again to the TEA Party and learn what it can from them. If The Donald wins, I predict the GOP brand will experience long-term damage with many persons and groups in the USA. I have been a free-trade person, which is typical of conservatives. Such internationalism on trade is out of favor with many persons, and I may need to do some re-thinking here. I have never been an "open borders" person. I think strong national boundaries are important. At the same time, I keep puzzling as to why something "reasonable" cannot find acceptance among the GOP and Democrats when it comes to dealing humanely with persons here illegally. This campaign has brought a division in both parties between party leaders (derisively called elites) and the people (represented by Trump and Sanders). I hope party leaders will spend some time listening to their people.

At this time, philosophical matters regarding the role of government seem to mean nothing. This issue used to be what united Republicans. However, Trump has changed that. We now have a person in the Republican race that rejects the conservatism of Reagan as well as the Bush legacy. He rejects free trade. He does not want to face the growth of entitlement spending. This is a first in my involvement in politics since the mid-1970s. For me, this is the danger of Trump. If he were to win it all, there would be no genuinely conservative party in America. Jonah Goldberg says that in 1934 the American Liberty League formed from people who did not like the big government policies of Herbert Hoover on the Republican side or Franklin Roosevelt on the Democrat side. Although not successful, it led to the birth of other conservative organizations. I do not know much about the league, but the idea is interesting. “There is one very clear lesson to be learned from history — namely, that governmental disregard for property rights soon leads to disregard for other rights,” one of its pamphlets declared. “A bureaucracy or despotism that robs citizens of their property does not like to be haunted by its victims.” As with Progressives today, their opponents did not value the founders or Constitution.

“If anybody’s in favor of saving the Constitution, it’s a sure sign he’s got at least a million dollars.”

In a sense, Donald Trump is part Democrat and part Republican. He is more like the old-time conservative Democrat, which no longer exist. As a result, his policies, and sometimes his comments, reflect that focus.  Mona Charen has stated well my concern here as she focuses on what will happen to a conservative vision of government in this nomination process. George Will has nailed it once again on this matter. The election of Trump will mean the end of a conservative vision of governance. David French has identified my primary concern, that Trump is popular because he is not a conservative. He also stresses that the "base" is not as conservative some analysts have thought. Rich Lowry has written what I have been thinking and written in my blog, that Trump represents the destruction of the Republican Party. He is running against the Party from within the Party. Thomas Sowell writes of the importance of the time and the danger of Trump. Donald Lambro has written a sensible article. I interpret this way. The Establishment (term used positively here) had a plan for increasing Republican presence in the House and Senate and put a Republican in the Presidency. Trump has destroyed that plan and it will lead to devastating losses by Republicans throughout the country. Rich Lowry writes about how Trump has destroyed the type of conservativism represented by Jack Kemp and Marco Rubio. He also points to the Trump opposition to the Bush family. On this, I agree that the party needs to distance itself from the Bush family, but the way Trump has done this will be devastating to the Party. Mona Charen has written of the unrealistic expectations that good people are placing upon government. It will have devastating effects on the country because the voters want their politicians to lie to them about what government can do. Jonah Goldberg says his brand of conservativism is not dead. He does so in dialogue with Peggy Noonan, who thinks that the Bush emphasis on internationalism in trade and relatively open borders and military involvement is giving way to a new burst of patriotism. I think Peggy is closer to right. Conservatives like Jonah need to do some re-evaluating of what the Bush family has meant to the Republican agenda and the ultimate separation that has occurred between many Republican leaders and the people who vote in primaries.

I will not offer reasons to vote for either of the two major candidates for President this year. In the past, I have compared the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church with the positions of the candidates. I do not have the interest this year. This election cycle does not deserve respectful analysis. Thus, I will offer reasons why you should not vote for either one. If you want reasons to vote for, you can go to their web sites. I cannot think of good reasons to vote for either candidate. I can see where one might vote against one or the other. From a conservative perspective, one could make a strong case that The Donald losing would be a victory. I am not sure if the typical liberal would agree, but maybe the faithful Progressive or the faithful Democrat would agree that the time has come for the Party to put the Clintons behind them and stretch forward to something new. This would mean that a defeat for Hillary might be victory. Sometimes, being the party of opposition offers the party an opportunity to identify itself more clearly to itself, which an then lead to presenting the alternatives clearly in the next election.

One of the issues is Progressive agendas and politics. R. Emmett Tyrell Jr has written about the death of liberalism, making the claim that the old liberalism of the 1960s is dead, replaced by a progressive approach that is quite different from the past. Michael Barone offers an interesting analysis of the death of the center-left dimension of the Democrat Party. He uses an analogy with England. Jeff Greenfield offers an analysis of the effect of Obama on the Democrat Party nationally. It is not good. Dana Bilbank refers to the death of the blue dog Democrat as revealed in the House in November 2015. Thomas Sowell offers his account of how the Left is fact free, using some recent issues. In another article with the same theme, he focuses on the help the Left wants to give to those who need it, and the harm they end up doing. Larry Elder also provides statistics that suggest that African-Americans are worse off since Obama became president.

The Democrat Party is raising the issue of socialism. This fact concerns me. The fact that an old socialist named Bernie could give Hillary such a run for her money is an indication of the weakness of her candidacy. I would like to offer a reminder of why socialism is not a good thing. One can only hope that the Democrat Party will back away from this idea and restore the best of its liberal tradition. Here is a brief discussion of socialism between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue. Less than 4 minutes. Walter Williams has 5 minutes on the morality of capitalism that you will find interesting. I find it disheartening that America is changing to the point where a socialist can garner half the votes in IA and likely win New Hampshire. Voters need to do some serious reading about the disaster socialism would bring to this country. Patrick Barron explains why European socialism is failing. Stephen Moore explains the failure of European socialism through economist Milton Friedman. John Hawkins offers 5 ways socialism destroys societies. Alternatively, the best approach to understand capitalism better, which Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom, Free to Choose) are the best ways to do this. If you want an extensive analysis, George Gilder, Wealth & Poverty is the best approach I have seen in laying out the moral foundation for capitalism. Thomas Sowell has written of the lure of socialism. He also discusses that socialism sounds good, but then, reality sets in, as it has in Venezuela. Walter Williams writes of the hidden and negative history of progressivism. Michael Tanner has a nice article on whether socialism is making a comeback. Harry Jaffa has written about the change occurring in liberalism/progressivism/socialism, and here is a brief summary by Steven Hayward. On the lighter side, Emily Ekins writes that millennials are attracted socialism - until they get jobs.

The Progressive and the Socialist, by definition, wants more involvement of government in the area of what we call "civil society," the arena where citizens live in neighborhoods, engage in economic exchanges, freely join associations, and join religious organizations. At a philosophical level, which I know this election does not favor, government is best when it is small. No government is "good," simply because human beings run it. All government has a shadow side. As Jesus put it, only one is "good," and that would be God. The larger the government your ideology demands, the more potential for the shadow side to emerge. In America, this means paying attention to the roles of federal, state, and local governments, and even more to the role of the liberty of its citizens in "civil society" (businesses, families, and its voluntary associations such as churches, synagogues, and mosques.) I moved from liberalism with my last liberal vote, Jimmy Carter, due to the influence of William Buckley, George Will, and Milton Friedman. This election will not be about any of that.

In any case, I will vote, of course. The issues that concern me are simple. I still want a reduction in the role of the federal government in our personal lives and wealth, but that is unlikely to happen in this election, regardless of who wins. I would like to see the nation start paying off the national debt rather than adding to it, but that will not happen, no matter who wins. On the Supreme Court, I want more people like Justice Scalia. The constitution limits the power of the federal government. Hopefully, we can start the journey toward recognizing those limits. In national defense, the Middle East and the war against Islamic Militancy as approached by Obama has been a disaster. I want something different, even if I find it difficult to state precisely what. In matters of violence within America, I support the police and others on the front lines of protecting citizens. Presidents, governors, and mayors need to be behind those who protect citizens from violence. I would note in this regard that the violence done against black people occurs in cities run by the Democrat Party and often run by Democrat police chiefs. God created all persons in the image of God. Christ died for all. In Christ, there is no white, black, brown, or any other color. An important theological issue is involved. An important matter strategy is involved. If you want change, you take the path of love and respect rather than hate. You take the path of non-violence.

We still have a secret ballot. I may not even tell my wife what I do with my vote. My vote this year will be one I cast with embarrassment, no matter what I do.

Most people prefer to hit the surface of issues. I would invite you to take some time. I have continued the process of linking to articles that I hope will be helpful in the decision-making process for any who might read this blog. I will update. This is mostly for your information. However, for me, it will be a matter of meditation and prayer as well. You see, I am grateful for having the good fortune of being an American. Jesus suggested that we "render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar," but this election is difficult for this citizen.

Second, reasons to vote Against Hillary

If you have read this far, you know that I will disagree with Hillary on policy matters. I know, she is United Methodist. Still, I cannot travel with her on her political journey at all.

One of the challenges Hillary faces in this election is that, even though her opponent scares many people, she is equally as scary and unlikeable to many persons. I would be among such voters. If you are among those who do not understand this, Mona Charen offers a brief reminder of what she has done to cause this reaction. She will continue to claim that people do not want to vote for her because they are not ready for a woman president. This avoids a harsh reality. Even many liberals do not like her. I think feminists are starting to realize what she did to the women her husband sexually abused. The only way any of the scandals surrounding Hillary "matter" is if Democrats will withdraw votes due to them. I do not see that happening.

First, should the Bill Clinton scandals regarding women influence the Hillary campaign? If you are among those who think it does not matter, or that it is a "vast right wing conspiracy" as Hillary put it, then you can skip this part. In my view, the answer is affirmative. True, Bill is not running for President. However, I think pondering Hillary's role in attacking the women involved is worth the time. Christians can differ on the role of government in the lives of citizens. However, here is one place where, I confess, I have difficulty seeing how Christians can support her. In this case, the issue is not so much what Bill did, but what she did in response. Larry Elder ponders why Hillary has never been asked publicly about her role in the scandals. I think Joe Scarborough is right in saying that times have changed, with her past behavior coming back to haunt her. She personally destroyed women who were on the receiving end of sexual advances from Bill Clinton. These women were not her political enemies. They were victims of the sexual predator she had as a husband. She acted to protect his political career. This was important to her because she valued her political career. She willingly destroyed the lives of several women for these reasons. Camille Paglia discusses how young women will not take kindly to the way Hillary attacked other women who experienced the sexual advances of her husband. Suzanne Fields explores this matter as well, under the theme that young millennial women will not like what they hear about Hillary and her role in covering for Bill. Victor Davis Hanson says that when she condemns other people, she condemns herself. Donald Trump produced a video that pulls no punches. John Kass deals with the NYT hit piece on The Donald and why it is ineffective. Of course, he is referring to Hillary's husband. If I can find a less polemical article, I will replace this one, but for those who need a reminder. The best brief article concerning why the sexual affairs of Bill matter for Hillary is by Rich Lowry.

Second, the matter of Benghazi has a strong character element. For people who think that Hillary has the experience, her behavior here is not helpful. Jonah Goldberg wonders if actual accomplishments will be downfall of Hillary. Hillary was Secretary of State. Herb London offers a relatively reasoned assessment of her years there. Jennifer Rubin discusses the failure of the policy regarding Libya. George Will weighs in on the policy failure of Libya. I like the questions that Michael Barone thinks Hillary needs to be asked. In any case, Pat Smith, mother of one of those murdered by Islamic militants, offered a powerful testimony at the GOP convention. She blames Hillary for his death. The movie 13 Hours is very good. It is not a political movie. It does offer the perspective of some of the soldiers on the ground during the Benghazi attack. It says nothing directly about Obama or Hillary. We as viewers may well leave wondering if those on the ground were right -- more could have done by those above them. The context here is that she did not reinforce the embassy because of the Obama campaign meme that al qada is on the run. However, the character issue is that after the attack and the killings, she told the grieving families it was the result of a video when she knew, according to released emails, that it was the result of a planned attack. For me, someone who can lie to grieving persons like that has a profound character issue. Again, she did this to support the false campaign theme of Obama. I invite you to reflect upon the issues involved here. In January 2016, Bob Tyrell and Andrew Napolitano explain in a reasonable way the trouble in which Hillary finds herself. Ron Fournier explains why he does not believe Hillary. He is a liberal. John Podhoretz outlines issues related to Benghazi, email controversy, and steady release of State Department emails. John Solomon offers a factual account of the issues involved in Benghazi. Debra J. Saunders offers her analysis of the Benghazi hearing. Thomas Sowell discusses the media covering for Hillary. He also writes of the attempt to re-make Hillary. The FBI has put the email controversy in the rear view mirror for this election, but not without some criticism. Jonah Goldberg offers some immediate analysis. Rosland S. Helderman outlines what Hillary said and its contrast with what FBI director said in July. In essence, Hillary is unreasonable, a non-criminal liar, and extremely careless with national security documents.

Third, the corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation is an issue. In early 2015, one of the stories about Hillary Clinton involved the Clinton foundation. The basic story involved the Clintons becoming wealthy after their departure from the White House, from which they famously emerged as "in debt" and "broke." They quickly became wealthy through the speeches they made. Their foundation gained much in wealth, while giving 15% of its income to charities and the rest to "other." Jo Becker and Mike McIntire wrote the New York Times article. Rosalind S. Helderman wrote the Washington Post article. Linda Chavez explained the issues involved in a brief piece. John Stossel suggests that Hillary has a natural protection against suffering any consequences from her questionable actions. Jonah Goldberg notes that Hillary lies, even when it came to an interview she finally had, claiming she has not received a subpoena. Emmett Tyrell Jr says that indictment on these matters is coming as of January 2016. We will see.

I realize that many people are devoted progressives, liberals, and Democrats. However, I invite you to consider the character of this woman. Read M. Scott Peck, "People of the Lie."

One of the primary responsibilities of any President is the defense of the country. The record Hillary is not good at this point. She has been part of orchestrating the Middle East policy that has led to the rise of Islamic militancy and the crushing of Christianity in that part of the world. The approach of Obama to terrorism, and the similarity with Hillary, will be an issue. From my perspective, the nation needs to consider a militant form of Islam as an enemy. If the nation does not deal with it "over there," the result will be infiltration "here." The weakness of Obama on this topic, shown especially in his response to Paris, to San Bernadino, and to Orlando, will be a concern to many Americans, but probably not to most people in the Democrat Party. To be clear, I think Obama-Hillary have promoted a form of political correctness that threatens the security of citizens. They have not allowed normal investigations lead to examination of Muslims and Mosques that are clearly security threats. Thus, they have devised a distraction. When their policy fails, as it did in Orlando, it made the FBI look bad and it gave them an opportunity to focus attention on the shiny object, gun control, rather than the real issue, that Muslim radicals are here to do us harm. Obama-Hillary provide the political distraction of gun violence instead of focusing upon the danger of Islamic militancy. The reason is their devotion to political correctness. It does make one wonder if they take the threat to America seriously. The weakness here has also led to the popularity of some perceiving Trump to be strong. Thomas Sowell ponders whether the shooting at Orlando will change anything. Mona Charen ponders whose side he is on. The Hill reports on the idea of Rush Limbaugh that Democrats hate conservatives more than they hate terrorists. This raises the question of the Obama foreign policy in general. Michelle Malkin says Florida is a Jihad playground. Glenn Kessler fact-checks statements made after the Orlando shooting that focused on need for gun-control. To focus on the political distraction by Obama-Hillary after Orlando, they not only used gun control, but homophobia and the traditional Christian stance on marriage as a focus rather than focusing on the actual treatment of homosexuals in Muslim countries. Jonah Goldberg has made this point well. Ramesh Ponnuru discusses the rise of gun control in Congress and the differing approaches of the two parties on this matter. Republicans wanted anyone on the terror watch list stopped from purchasing for 72 hours while the gun seller notifies authorities to determine if the person should be forbidden from purchasing. Josef Joffe refers to it as isolationism with drones, doing so in the Atlantic and in a scholarly analysis of what he sees. As we see Islamic militants use a truck in Nice, FR and an axe in Germany, we can see that the militants are showing the West that their ability to kill has nothing to do with the availability of guns. They can kill many means, with 9/11/2001 being the supreme example. If you want some information about the spread of violence by Muslims, The Religion of Peace is a reliable site as is The Counter-Jihad Report. For many Democrats, it seems that as soon as there is terrorist attack, the instinct is to defend Islam and Muslims. It becomes an occasion to blame America for the attacks. It even becomes an occasion to blame Christians, forgetting that Islamic militants are largely engaging in genocide in the Middle East. This reaction seems to be justification for not taking the terror threat seriously, nor taking reasonable and common sense steps to stop them. Given the academic view of America as founded in white privilege and slavery, the instinct of the Progressive is to identify with the anger of the Muslim militant against the West in general and with America in particular. We see that instinct reflected in the public statements of both Obama and Hillary.

Iraq remains an issue. David Harsanyi wonders when Hillary will be held accountable for her vote on Iraq. Robert Gates explained how Iraq went from strength to dangerous weakness. Catherine Herridge explains that the prediction of the rise of ISIS and its apparent ignoring by the administration. The rise of ISIS has and the approach to Syria has led to a refugee crisis in Europe as of September 2015. Jonah Goldberg discusses some of the dynamics of this. Jonah Goldberg offers critique of Obama on handling ISIS. Wesley Pruden thinks that when things get tough with ISIS, Obama changes the subject to immigration of Syrian refugees. Rich Lowry reminds us why there are so many refugees, laying it at the feet of Obama. Michael Barone explains that while ISIS attacks, Obama gets angry at Americans who disagree with him. Mona Charen discusses the mistakes of Obama that have led to Syrian refugees.

Iran is an issue. Rachel Marsden reflects upon the importance of a pathway to economic security. Ben Shapiro compares the deal with Iran to Neville Chamberlin, but adds that one could argue that Chamberlin loved his country. While this idea is challenging, the point here is that Obama wants an enemy to become a regional power. Ken Blackwell argues that the proposed Iran deal is worse than what Chamberlin did and he refers to the speech by Winston Churchill in opposition. David Horovitz offers 16 reasons the Iran deal is a victory for Iran and a catastrophe for the West. Peter Morici discusses the economic advantages Iran will receive with the negotiated deal, making it an economic powerhouse in the region. Charles Krauthammer discusses the nuclear deal and is not favorable.

People often think of elections won/lost on bread and butter issues. One of the issues will be President Obama and his economic policies. Stephen Moore thinks he has divided the nation along class lines. In this article, he writes of the myths about poverty with which Obama seems to live. James Shirk has exposed weakness in the Obama claim to economic success. Hillary offered a major economic speech. Although I did not listen, even sympathetic listeners said it was tired and uninspiring. Donald Lambro analyzes her economic recommendations and finds them lacking. Cal Thomas also looks at the speech and considered it boring, as well as tired and expected rhetoric. Michael Barone, who thinks she is likely to be the next President, examines this speech as a throwback to the year of her birth, 1948, when government was the solution to every problem. Robert J. Samuelson analyzes her proposal for encouraging profit-sharing. Fred Barnes considers her economic plan as a way to shrink the economy further.

With the decision of the Supreme Court in June 2015, Obamacare will be an issue. Elizabeth Slattery thinks the judges acted like lawmakers rather than judges. S. E. Cupp says this was a gift to the Republican Party. David Harsanyi thinks the Court turned its back on the rule of law. George Will discusses what he thinks is the real problem with the decision.

Carl Rove compares the message of President Clinton and the message of Hillary, and finds the latter wanting. Thomas Sowell examines her record, and finds its failures not balanced by successes. George Will has some serious questions that he thinks Hillary ought to answer. Jonah Goldberg examines her flip-flop on the Trans-Pacific Trade deal and a few other such alterations of policy positions, suggesting that one cannot trust any position she has.

I now offer a few articles in chronological order.

In July, Rush Limbaugh gave a surprisingly good analysis of the view that Republicans are the extremist party in America.  I say surprising because he presents that view quite well. Of course, his view is that the Democrat Party is the extremist party. If you read this article fully, you will get exposure to both.

In June, Cal Thomas refers to the endorsement of Hillary by Obama and shows why she is not as qualified as he said. Daniel Gallington writes of the mistake some people make in thinking that she has experience.

In May, Fred Barnes describes a difference between myth and reality in Hillary. Newt Gingrich writes of the male-female pay discrepancies in the Hillary Senate staff and at the Foundation. Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing the Democrat Party. Kathleen Parker shares a 13 minute video of the lies of Hillary. Most who follow the political scene will remember them, but worth hearing again.  Wesley Pruden says people just do not like Hillary and she cannot do anything about that except remind people of what they do not like about The Donald. Jonah Goldberg says the IG report on the emails confirms everything critics have said.

Robert J. Samuelson discusses the down side of "soaking the rich" as a tax policy.

He notes that the top 1 percent accounted for 14.6 percent of pretax income in 2011 and paid 24 percent of federal taxes. Clinton would raise total taxes 1.1 trillion over the decade, with 3/4 coming from the upper one percent. Sanders tax package would raise a staggering $15.3 trillion over a decade. Most taxpayers would be hit. It would make more sense if Hillary would calmly re-state the traditional Democrat Party line and let Bernie promote his socialism.

The Democrat Party likes to attack the Koch Brothers, to which Jonah Goldberg responds.

On paying their fair share of taxes, Walter Williams is always good to read, and this is a recent article.

One campaign theme will be the war on women. The theme of the "war on women" has taken an interesting turn. In August 2015, she compared Republican opposition to Planned Parenthood to terrorists. Carly Fiorina responded. So did Mark Halperin. She does not pay women on her own staff as much as men. The Clinton Foundation has received millions of dollars from Islamic states that oppress women. Further, terrorists are beheading people for their ideas, while Planned Parenthood is crushing the heads of babies in order to sell baby parts. Stephen Moore re-directs this issue to the Obama years and how difficult it has been for working women. Planned Parenthood is selling the body parts of the fetuses they abort. S. A. Miller describes the vigorous defense of the organization against attacks, putting to rest the hope that some people had that those on the opposite side of the abortion question could unite in opposition to this practice. Joy Overbeck ponders the founder of the organization, Margaret Sanger, and the praise Hillary placed upon her.

Hillary has flip-flopped or evolved on her view of illegal immigration, according to Matt Vespa. Here is a YouTube 30 second video from 2006 that illustrates this view.

Hillary seemed to get into demagoguery when she accused Republicans of wanting to keep people from voting. In supporting a lawsuit against Ohio, for example, she failed to note that New York has only one day to vote, while Ohio has a month to vote. Bill Murchison discusses this matter. Mona Charen calls it the "They hate you" strategy.


Third, reasons to vote against Donald Trump

To paraphrase the former British Prime Minister Lord Melbourne, what all the wise men promised has not happened and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass (Michael Barone reference, but appropriate here). I am among those who, at the beginning of the Republican nomination process, said "please no" regarding Donald and Ted. Of course, that did not happen.  David Limbaugh offers why conservatives who respect the constitution ought to have some concerns about Trump, and why Trump supporters should be understanding and sympathetic of these concerns.
Christine Flowers reverses her previous "never Trump" articles and offers the Supreme Court as her reason.

Here is the Republican Party Platform. It is 66 pages. In skimming it, I did not find much that surprised me. The "fair trade" element is new, and one that I am willing to re-consider. I remained concerned about trade wars.

Jonah Goldberg notes the failure of the GOP convention to unite the party. In other conventions, enough commonality existed among the candidates. The convention provided a time to unite. With the non-appearance of Bush, McCain, Romney, Cheney, Jeb, Kasich, and I am sure others, this convention failed. I am listing speeches by some family and people who knew him because of the willingness so many have had to go toward ad hominem attacks. I think these persons show that trump does not have horns, a tail, and pitchfork. I was particularly struck by accounts of him as an encourager and cheerleader. I saw some of that in his speech. Melania Trump gave a fine speech in favor her husband. However, about 50 words were lifted out of Michele Obama's speech. After that, much false outrage ensued on the internet. I say false because many of these same persons will be all in for Hillary. I can think of few people who have lowered political discourse more than she has done, including her recent lying to the American people about emails and lying to the family of those who died in Libya. Meredeth McIver said that as a staffer, she took down some notes over the phone that Melania gave to her. Melania said she liked some of the things that Michelle said in her speech. However, she took responsibility for not checking the speech and citing it. Rudolf Giuliani prosecuted the case against Hillary. Gov. Christie also prosecuted the case against Hillary. He gave a speech that had some controversy as the crowd shouted "Jail her." For those who have a concern about this language, Jonah also has a brief defense. Scott Walker delivered a powerful message. Donald Trump Jr gave what most think was a good speech for his father. The same with Eric. Mike Pence gave a solid speech, much more traditional than most of the speeches. It contained a solid conservative message. Ted Cruz was his normal, isolated, arrogant self. He did urge people to vote their conscience. He admitted the next day that he did not endorse because of what he said about Heidi and his dad during the election. If he had wisdom as well as intelligence, he would have done what Jeb, Kasich, Carly, Rand Paul, and others had done, and stayed home. At the same time, most of us have had the experience, in dealing with an opponent, to give them enough rope to hang themselves. I wonder if that is what happened here. In any case, the obvious glorying in the spotlight by Ted might have led Republicans to unite. No one likes a sore loser. Red State is a NeverTrump conservative organization. It was behind Ted Cruz, including what he did on Wednesday night. Sadly, Trump, after his acceptance of speech, went back to the attack upon Cruz's father as involved in the Oswald assassination. Stephen Hayes points out that this ought to make one wonder if he has the temperament to be president, as prone to conspiracy theories as he is. One article stresses why they persist. As the article puts it:

he wasn't willing to sell his family out for a political party. He wasn't willing compromise his beliefs by joining hands with a man who is an enemy of everything conservatism stands for. He wasn't willing to stand and be counted with the army of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, and other such filth that run with Trump's cabal. He wasn't willing to make a mockery of his faith in order to push a political cause nor blaspheme his Savior by paying homage to an amoral charlatan.

Since I have not been a Trump supporters, and these things have bothered me as well, I feel no need to defend. Chris Todd, head of the Texas GOP, resigned. This is not surprising, given his closeness to Ted. I remain concerned. As noted above, though, I have similar types of concerns about Hillary. Am I naïve? I know I can be. However, listening to the accounts from his family and friends, I have to make a choice of whom I trust more. Here is a good example of what happens when you have conflicting witnesses to the character of a person. It becomes especially troubling when you have people on both sides that you respect. Is it sour grapes on the part of Red State, Jonah Goldberg, and Erick Erickson, since their Cruz did not win? Do they have an insight into the soul of Trump that his friends clearly do not have? I stress that the things to which the article points trouble me. The idea that David Duke, for example, would like anything I said would make me go through some self-examination that I do not see Trump doing. Mona Charen remains firmly against Trump and what the Republican Party has become, but also shares why she is not for Ted Cruz. Charles Krauthammer offers some notes on the convention. Donald Trump gave what I thought was a powerful presentation of his position. It was nationalist and populist. I doubt that I have ever heard a relatively full presentation of his position. Contrary to some I do not think that concern for who is coming into the country is xenophobia, whether from Mexico or from Arab countries. I appreciated his comments on the gay community. In fact, the convention has made clear respect for the diversity of this nation. Trump has made a special appeal to the inner cities. He is concerned that our government seems to have little concern for who comes into the country, even if they are dangerous people. He gives full-throated support to those on the front lines of the security of the people. He is concerned with foreign entanglements such as treaties and military involvements, that do not bring an advantage back to the United States. I remained concerned about his vision of trade with foreign countries. Depressions, including the Great Depression, begin with trade wars. However, it fits with his nationalism. I am willing to re-examine by views on this. In particular, I find it at least puzzling that you need hundreds of pages to say that nations have free trade. If it really is free, should it not take a line or two? It begins to look suspiciously like favoring some businesses in the respective countries over others.

As with Hillary, so with Trump, people react to him to him at a personal level.

The rise of Trump has puzzled me on a personal level. Back when I watched news regularly, he was on Fox & Friends once a week. I would mute it. Part of it, I know, was his whole wonderment about the birth certificate of Obama. I was not interested, but he persisted. In general, though, I was not impressed with his ideas or the way he presented them. For that reason, when he announced for the presidency, I thought others would easily defeat him.

Some people try to explain Trump by reference to the character or ad hominem side of the equation, the charge of racism and misogyny. The Editorial Board of the Washington Post is an example, saying he is a unique danger to the country. This charge puts me in an awkward position. I do not take the charge lightly. George Wallace, Sen. Fulbright from Arkansas and mentor of Bill Clinton, Bull Connor, and many others, were racist. They had the language and behavior that suggested racist intent.  Unfortunately, being a conservative for a long time, I get used to liberal - progressive leaning leaders accusing anyone who disagrees with their policies doing so because they hate a race or gender. The charge that Trump is fascist would require even more evidence. Adam Gopnick of the New Yorker offers a re-definition of fascism as nationalism. "the glorification of the nation, and the exaggeration of its humiliations, with violence promised to its enemies, at home and abroad; the worship of power wherever it appears and whoever holds it; contempt for the rule of law and for reason; unashamed employment of repeated lies as a rhetorical strategy; and a promise of vengeance for those who feel themselves disempowered by history. It promises to turn back time and take no prisoners." My problem with his argument is that he uses the same style of argument as does Trump/Nationalist/Fascist. He uses the term "fascist" to refer to one whom he admits is a "nationalist." Why not just call him nationalist? Obviously, "fascist" magnifies the danger of Trump, raising the image of Hitler and Mussolini. Why do that? Because you want to magnify the danger of Trump and make it easier for the many Americans who do not like Hillary to vote for her. For me, evidence of such charges would be in words and deeds. One can lift anything out of context and make it sound like what you want it to say, especially strung together. I am trying to make a distinction between disagreeing with a policy, such as deporting anyone here illegally or banning all Muslims from coming to the USA, which we can read as a concern for national security and the safety of citizens, and saying the motivation is racism. My hesitation on such charges is that I do not know his heart. My hesitation is that I know people who support Trump and I know they are not racist, etc. Rudy Giuliani is a prime example of someone who knows Trump personally and can give  full-throated endorsement at the GOP convention. My hesitation is that I do not think a reality star like Trump would have been hired by NBC if he were a hated any race or gender, and they would certainly not a fascist. My discomfort, again, is that there are many reasons I have for not liking Trump. Having said all of this, if I come across reasonable articles that are able to point to words, which in the Donald's case will be plenty, and to the actions, I will post them. For example, Leon H. Wolff of Red State, a conservative site, says that Donald will be worse than the 1964 Republicans, in part because Donald is racist. His evidence is the comments about the judge of Mexican descent and his retweeting of white supremacist and openly courting white supremacist votes. Now, the difficulty I always have with Donald is that does such words and actions fall under the stupid things Donald does and says, or does it betray a darker motivation. In any case, Republicans have many Hispanic representatives, two of them ran for President, and will usually get 25-40% of their vote nationally and 40% in Texas. The point is that Donald could be like Goldwater in losing that vote to the Democrat Party. This author has identified why I have not favored Donald and the danger I think he is to GOP and to a conservative view of governance.

I have found a few analyses of the support for Trump that I have found insightful. Daniel W. Dresner writes about the trouble with Trump is that he is as simple as he sounds, and is therefore is "a narcissistic, ignorant, misogynistic gasbag." Those who follow Trump also simple, so you can add racist to the analysis. I do not usually refer to such articles, but this one had an interesting twist, whether one agrees or does not. Angelo Codevilla gives the best explanation I have read of the fascination with Trump and why he opposes Trump. He writes of the frustration that many Americans have with the ruling class, which is progressive and Democrat, that finds expression in Trump. His concern is that following up one emperor with another emperor may mean the end of a republican (note small r) form of government. Thomas Sowell expresses his disagreement with the Trump campaign. He laments with the concern that when we need maturity after the disaster of Obama, we will get Trump. He states clearly that the direction we are heading means the front-runners in both political parties are not merely inadequate but appalling.  Mona Charen puts him together with Bernie Sanders as a demagogue. She also gave tips to Trump opponents for certain areas of attack. Mark Tooley writes of why he will vote for Hillary rather than Trump after 33 years of voting Republican. Of course, I cannot do that one. I would rather leave that box unchecked. Religious leader Max Lucado has offered a perspective on simple decency that should disqualify Trump, especially as he declares himself a Christian and holds up a Bible. Mark Cunningham has written of how Trump has a new way to win. I hope that the following will help others think through the process. National Review came out with an edition labeled "Against Trump." People like Glenn Beck, Thomas Sowell, Dana Loesch, and Brent Bozell III are hardly the hated "establishment." Some are for Cruz. Jonah Goldberg was glad for the February 25 debate and its attack on Trump, considers it unfortunate that an attack on his governing philosophy is not effective, and that the only attack that will work is that he is a shallow, vain, bullying man. He expanded the objection again with reference to some of his friends, such as Sean Hannity and Bill Bennett, and especially the inappropriate connection with Ronald Reagan.

If we move out of the attempts to explain the rise of Trump through misogyny, racism and fascism, we might focus on the new political environment created by the President, the Democrat Party, the media, and Hollywood. Barack Obama might be the primary reason for the rise of Donald Trump. I do not mean this to be a polemical matter or even a partisan one. However, throughout the Obama presidency, the policies adopted regarding both illegal immigration and terror have seemed weak and ineffective to many Americans. The spread of political correctness to the point that it has become bullying of anyone who disagrees with "enlightened" opinion of Hollywood and academia, has also happened with the backing of Obama. Some people resist this bullying and want it stopped. They really do want someone to fight for them. Someone was going to tap into that perception of things. Philosophically, this is in line with Hegel. Once the primary theme becomes the agenda that Obama has, it becomes "natural" for its opposite to arise, and Donald Trump has tapped into that opposite. However, the opposite to progressive Obama is not necessarily conservative. Yes, it will be patriotic, concerned with physical threats from Islamic militancy, and rein in the federal government at some level. It will have a populist appeal rather than an elite or establishment appeal. With Donald Trump, we have someone who has won the nomination of a major political party in the manner of a celebrity. He figures out a way to say something that will grab the media attention. This attention gets him high numbers in the polls. It also gets him free media.

Here are a few other attempts to explain the rise of Trump. David Brady and Douglas Rivers explains the Trump phenomenon in a growing distrust of government in that many think special interests control government. Jim Tankersley explains it with the commitment of the Republican Party to free trade and the lack of results. For those not too acquainted with the Republican Party, Philip Rucker and Dan Balz explain the many policies he has that are contrary to the tradition of the party. Jonah Goldberg says that whether Trump is or is not the nominee, the GOP is over as it was.  Joe Scarborough discusses the reason he thinks Trump resonates with so many people. He focuses on the separation between the people and the elites. Victor Davis Hanson offers his view of Trumpsters.

I have largely stopped listening to "talk radio." Sometimes, if on the road, I might turn it on, but find myself arguing with the speaker.
Several public figures, such as Rush, Sean, and Mark Levin, are clearly conservative and put a positive spin on Trump. These persons generally have not perceived the danger of Trump to conservativism. They have not had the insight the Establishment has had in seeing Trump as a danger to the Republican Party. The reason, I think, is that some conservatives have grown to hate the Establishment so much they have grown blind to a danger from another quarter. I finally saw this type of analysis in print with Michael Gerson, which makes me think I might be at least headed in the right direction. What they forget is that constituents have voted for the Republicans who run the Senate and House. These are people who believe in limited forms of government involvement in our lives, and therefore less taxes and regulation. In any case, I think for these media personalities, Trump was a vehicle for lashing out at what they believe has been weak opposition to the Obama agenda. Hannity regularly says Republicans mistrust their leadership. He does not often point out that the opposite is true with the Democrat leadership, where the rank and file Democrat marches in lockstep with the leadership. I figured that eventually, the Democrat part of Trump would come out in a way that these media persons would have to respond negatively. What has amazed me is that their hatred of "establishment" has meant speaking positively about a liberal to moderate politician like Trump. In the process, they may well kill the Republican Party as a conservative party. My frustration is that as Republicans attempt to follow the constitution, where the President does not, there are limits to what they can do, even with majorities in both Houses. My further concern, that many conservatives do not yet share, is that Trump will damage conservative ideas by his attacks on conservative and liberal ideas. He is charting his own course, and it is not the conservative ideas that attracted me to the GOP. For me, it is enough that George Will has spoken on this matter. He has updated his concerns.
Sadly, just because I usually like him, David Brooks offered a ridiculous piece opposing Trump in which his attack was upon those who vote for him as desiring authoritarianism, defined as parents who desire their children to be respectful. This attempt to discover the authoritarian-leaning voter is highly suspect and biased.

Some people have tried to analyze matters related to policy. In the end, I doubt any of this will matter.

 

One person has simply answered the question, "Honestly, why would anyone vote for Trump."

Jim Tankersley and Max Ehrenfreund discuss the policies of Trump.

Karen DeJong and Jose A. DelReal write about the Trump foreign policy speech.

For some people, the fact that Trump is a business person bodes well for him as President. Yet, what kind of business has he done? Brett Arends writes of the downside of the Trump business record, where he makes money while stockholders do not. In 2011, Jonathan Hoenig said that while Trump is a businessman, his business policies are not in line with capitalism.

Trump has raised the matter of free trade. This is a difficult one, for I have been in favor of free trade since the 1980s. At the same time, I think that this election has shown that Republicans need to re-engage this issue. Rich Lowry defends the traditional Republican view and therefore disagrees with the Trump position of "fair trade."

Of course, Trump has raised the matter of illegal immigration. Rick Noack discusses the New Year's Eve sexual assaults by Muslim men of German women. Terry Jeffrey says that 41.7% of the federal criminal cases are in the five districts across from Mexico. Linda Chavez takes a strong stance against what Trump says about illegal immigrants, but I have a few comments for her. S. E. Cupp discusses what Trump is doing right in July 2015, as he speaks in a fresh way. Eric Erickson discusses the nervousness that the political field has with the way Trump is getting so much attention in July 2015. Mona Charen shares some statistics regarding crime and illegal immigration, encouraging a calm conversation that Trump has precluded. Family Security Matters offers further statistics that would contradict Mona Charen and support Trump. I confess that the statistics I have seen are confusing. Thomas Sowell discusses his problems with Trump while discussing immigration.  The Corner in the National Review offers a brief description of the immigration plan he offered in August 2015, which is largely the plan of Jeff Sessions. Ann Coulter explains why Trump is right concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Linda Chavez focuses on birthright citizenship and defends it. Michael Barone offers a discussion of the 14th amendment and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Mona Charen joins the ranks of this view of the 14th amendment. Charles Krauthammer takes on the immigration matter and supports the idea of birthright citizenship. Michael Reagan thinks it time to take on Trump. George Will thinks the immigration plan could spell doom for the Republican Party. He also thinks that Trump will damage the Republican Party amidst minority voters and offers statistics to show why this is so dangerous. Helen Raleigh points to the Know-Nothing Party as a parallel, focusing on immigration.

Larry Kudlow discusses whether Donald Trump is a supply-side person on taxes and spending. He thinks Trump is. Larry Kudlow and Stephen Moore point out that the last protectionist president America had was Republican Herbert Hoover, and that did not go well. The trade policy of Trump seems headed down that path. Robert J. Samuelson says "Trumpanomics" does not add up.

Jeff Jacoby shows how Trump is in favor of expanding "eminent domain," something most conservatives would normally be against.

It is hard to keep up with the incidents that surround Trump.

In March 2016, we have the physical exchange between a campaign leader and reporter Michelle Fields. Mona Charen offers a reasonable analysis, referring to the "morality-free" zone that Trump inspires.

 

In July, at the GOP convention. his wife delivered a well received speech, until it appeared that she had lifted a portion from the speech of Michelle Obama in 2008. Yet another reason I am glad not to support Trump. I would probably feel like I would have to defend it. Of course, she is the wife of a candidate who obviously wrestles with English. Joe Biden and Barack Obama both plagiarized as candidates. Here is a fairly objective analysis of the differences. My only point here is that if you are going to judge a woman in this situation, I hope you are equally as hard on the guys. It would have been quite effective for Melania to refer to Michelle, actually.

Trump got into an altercation with Pope Francis. Robert P. George and George Weigel argue from a Roman Catholic perspective that Trump disqualifies himself. The Pope and Donald Trump - An unusual moment in the campaign. In February 2016, the Pope offered some comments on Trump and his Christianity. As reported in the NYT:
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian,” Francis said when a reporter asked him about Mr. Trump on the papal airliner as he returned to Rome after his six-day visit to Mexico. Asked whether he would try to influence Catholics in how they vote in the presidential election, Francis said he “was not going to get involved in that” but then repeated his criticism of Mr. Trump, with a caveat. “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that,” Francis said. “We must see if he said things in that way and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.” - My humble offering is that the Pope has made an error. You could argue that the Trump position on building a wall to secure the border is not a Christian position, I suppose, but to say he is not a Christian for holding that position is just strange. He needs to say that his English is not that good, that he would not judge someone's faith, and then clarify. As to the substance, Trump could have said that he is not only for a wall, but, as he has said, "a big beautiful door," which would also be like a bridge between the two countries. As always with Trump, if anything, this will help him with voters.
I now offer a few articles simply in chronological order.
July 2016 - Jeb Bush offered his continuing concern for the future of the GOP.
 

June 2016 - Fred Barnes describes conservative intellectuals outside the East Coast who have found a way to support Trump. The emphasis is on practicality, the danger of Clinton, and engaging Trump. In other words, as bad as Trump is, he is not evil and engaging him may win him over to conservative ideas.

May 2016 - Conor Friedersdorf has a long article in the Atlantic Monthly that consists of interesting dialogue with a millennial generation voter in San Francisco for Trump. The voter focuses on his frustration with political correctness. The article is a respectful discussion. Glenn Reynolds responds in a brief article by saying that Trump is what you get when the politically correct culture starts bullying people into submission. Alicia Colon, who was first for Gov. Perry, urges fellow conservatives to join with Trump and offers her reasons for doing so. Red State had an article that states clearly that Hillary is not better than Trump. Charles Krauthammer says the supposed anger at the Republican Establishment resulted in the nomination of the most liberal of the 17 candidates. Jonah Goldberg, a NeverTrump and NeverHillary person, says Trump could win and explains how. Thomas Sowell argues that like the legend of Herbert Hoover, Donald Trump, if he won, would have long-term negative impact upon the Republican Party if he won. George Will wonders who will follow Trump over the cliff. Kathleen Parker thinks "farewell" to the GOP and commends Paul Ryan. Robert Costa and Philip Rucker say that conservatives are stepping back from the GOP. Victor Davis Hanson has little good to say about Trump, but less about Hillary. Solid article on how conservatives are in a tough place. He also wrote of the myth of progress that is part of the Obama and progressive way of thinking. Denis Prager says the scariest reason that Trump won is that Republicans are not conservatives. "The four most-often cited reasons are the frustrations of white working-class Americans, a widespread revulsion against political correctness, disenchantment with the Republican establishment, and the unprecedented and unrivaled amount of time the media afforded Trump."  Dick Morris writes of how Trump is changing both political parties.

April 2016 – Bernie Goldberg makes the point that both Hillary and Trump have the highest unfavorable ratings of any candidates in polling history. George Will, with a twist of irony, says that the Trump campaign may, if it leads to reform of the primary process in the states, turn out for the public good. Ron Danker, a Cruz supporter, explains what Trump saw that Cruz did not regarding conservativism in this election.

 Fourth, and too close, an interesting analysis of the political landscape

If you would like a serious analysis of the political landscape, Angelo Codevilla wrote an analysis in 2010 that is scholarly and I think thought-provoking. The article is not for the faint of heart. It is a long scholarly article. Since I have not referred to it before, I hope you will bear with me. In a more recent article, he summarized his point by saying that "America is now ruled by a uniformly educated class of persons that occupies the commanding heights of bureaucracy, of the judiciary, education, the media, and of large corporations, and that wields political power through the Democratic Party. Its control of access to prestige, power, privilege, and wealth exerts a gravitational pull that has made the Republican Party’s elites into its satellites. Ordinary Americans have endured being insulted by the ruling class’s favorite epitaphs—racist, sexist, etc., and, above all, stupid; they have had careers and reputations compromised by speaking the wrong word in front of the wrong person; endured dictates from the highest courts in the land that no means yes (King), that public means private (Kelo), that everyone is entitled to make up one’s meaning of life (Casey), but that whoever thinks marriage is exclusively between men and women is a bigot (Obergefell). No wonder, then, that millions of Americans lose respect for a ruling class that disrespects them, that they identify with whomever promises some kind of turnabout against that class, and that they care less and less for the integrity of institutions that fail to protect them." Of course, all of this leads into the reason why the "Country Class" feels identification with Trump. the Ruling Class's fatal feature is its belief that ordinary Americans are a lesser intellectual and social breed. Its increasing self-absorption, its growing contempt for whoever won’t bow to it, its dependence for votes on sectors of society whose grievances it stokes, have led it to break the most basic rule of republican life: deeming its opposition illegitimate. The ruling class insists on driving down the throats of its opponents the agendas of each its constituencies and on injuring persons who stand in the way. This has spawned a Newtonian reaction, a hunger, among what may be called the “country class” for returning the favor with interest.It actually deserves more reflection by me than what I am giving it here. I offer a discussion with some pertinent quotes for those who might not think they have the time for the article. The "faith" is that they know better than the people. They are the best and brightest, while the rest of the country is largely racist and bigoted. This is bipartisan, but "Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives." They receive solid support from those who self-identity as Democrats. The Republican Party receives solid support from only about one-fourth of its voters. This one fourth you might call "establishment," junior members of the ruling class, but the rest are restless with any of the ruling class. His concern is that the ruling class has become largely monolithic in its thinking, but that America has never had this. "How did America change from a place where people could expect to live without bowing to privileged classes to one in which, at best, they might have the chance to climb into them?" "What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat..." "it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class." "Its attitude is key to understanding our bipartisan ruling class. Its first tenet is that "we" are the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained. How did this replace the Founding generation's paradigm that "all men are created equal"?" "the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class." They create dependent economics through taxation, spending, and regulation. "our bipartisan ruling class teaches that prosperity is to be bought with the coin of political support." The ruling class wants to change the culture. "The ruling class is keener to reform the American people's family and spiritual lives than their economic and civic ones." "It believes that the Christian family (and the Orthodox Jewish one too) is rooted in and perpetuates the ignorance commonly called religion, divisive social prejudices, and repressive gender roles, that it is the greatest barrier to human progress because it looks to its very particular interest." The ruling class wants to meddle in the affairs of nations: "its default solution to international threats has been to commit blood and treasure to long-term, twilight efforts to reform the world's Vietnams, Somalias, Iraqs, and Afghanistans, believing that changing hearts and minds is the prerequisite of peace and that it knows how to change them." "our ruling class does not like the rest of America." He contrasts the ruling class with the country class, some of which focus on merit, some of which value traditional family, and some of which want to focus on issues at home rather than abroad. "The country class disrespects its rulers, wants to curtail their power and reduce their perks. The ruling class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist, greedy, and above all stupid. The country class is ever more convinced that our rulers are corrupt, malevolent, and inept. The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance." The country class seeks to use the Republican Party has its vehicle, but has largely failed, the Bush family being the primary means of blocking them. "The Democratic Party having transformed itself into a unit with near-European discipline, challenging it would seem to require empowering a rival party at least as disciplined. What other antidote is there to government by one party but government by another party? Yet this logic, though all too familiar to most of the world, has always been foreign to America and naturally leads further in the direction toward which the ruling class has led. Any country party would have to be wise and skillful indeed not to become the Democrats' mirror image." "Consider: The ruling class denies its opponents' legitimacy." They are "uninformed, stupid, racist, shills for business, violent, fundamentalist, or all of the above."