06-28-2020, 05:50 PM
(06-28-2020, 04:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Doubtful anyone will come forward. So I will stand in for at least one fraction of Trump's core.
I just saw Ralph Reed discussing his new book For God and Country: The Christian Case for Trump on C-span.
I thought his presentation was fairly cogent. He laid out the primary points that Evangelicals want to see from a US president--the end of Roe v Wade, conservative judges to counter "activist judges," defense of Christianity, and support and protection of Israel.
In addition Trump had attended important national Evangelical events and included them in his administration and policy consideration to a greater extent than any other president, even W.
He added that for Evangelical citizens God is "sovereign", which may mean his more tribal version of Christianity trumps secularism in US government and cosmopolitan/internationalist tolerance of other religions. One disturbing aspect of this was the implication, which Reed drew out, that whomever was placed in world leadership positions was there by providence, part of a plan. When a leader like Trump ascends the stage, doing God's work, then our job is to support and work with him, help him get that done. This need trumps Trump's bad behavior, which for Reed is only so much background noise, amplified by the liberal press.
Then he argued convincingly that Trump has done all he could conceivably to meet the Evangelical's goals, especially stacking the courts with conservative judges.
I came away thinking that if, for you, God is sovereign, and ending abortion is a PRIMARY goal, followed by protection of Israel, then Trump has indeed performed well.
Reed showed no interest in managing Trade with the Far East and tensions with China/NK, no interest in stabilizing the Middle East or preserving NATO or advancing civil/voting rights, fighting the Coronovirus. Also no interest creating jobs or working out of recession. No interest in immigration problems, families stuck in border camps, children separated from parents. I can imagine the blank and unconcerned stare he would give me if I explained how trashing the Iran Deal hurt US credibility and made Israel less safe. Israel is going to be the site of a great international battle anyway.
Through the entire presentation, Reed clearly presented himself and Evangelicals as people rationally motivated by virtues of goodness, decency and morality.
Reed's explanations begs the question; what levels of immorality would evangelicals tolerate / attempt to justify, if it leads to the achievement of their ultimate goals? Using Reed's rationale, it seems the end goal is far more important than the path you chose to take to get there. I would argue that if the path itself is compromised, then the ends have been tainted by the means, leaving you with the same problems of having been stained by the very immorality you profess to be fighting against.
