First Word

Pretty much the whole Right Wing has lined up behind Trump, and I have caught the fever as well.  Of course by the Right I do not include neo-cons — confusion on this point has cost our people dearly for 30 years. The neo-con screeching that Trump is not conservative, that he’s anti-Constitution — as if either of those ideas ever constrained them — is pure posturing: if Trump were really so liberal, why isn’t the East-coast establishment behind him?

Unless in fact they are: unless we are about to be Souterized. For the younger readers, let me explain what I mean by this term. In 1990, President HW nominated David Souter for the Supreme Court, and it set off a chain of events that can only be called Hegelian. The controlled media launched a frenzied blitz against Souter. The Right wing, still high from the “Reagan Revolution,” swung back hard. We thought Reagan was the real deal, we thought therefore HW must also be, and we thought therefore Souter must also be. Actually, we didn’t “think” at all, in any real sense of the word. No one actually knew anything about Souter. Gradually, the Right overcame, the Left yielded — and we got one of the worst justices ever. We were Souterized.

To those of us that lived through that manipulated betrayal, there are a few vibes in connection with the Trump campaign that give the heebie-jeebies. I won’t mention the mindless chanting and whistling of the crowds, for this seems to be a universal feature of American politics on all sides. First and foremost is just the very full-court media press, which screams “no way, no way” in a way that makes me wonder if the lady doth not protest too much. The media onslaught is what it is (a) while giving endless free coverage, and (b) doing so in just such a way as to whip White conservatives into a frenzied backlash. “Go get’m, Donald; we don’t need no stinkin’ political correctness.” True: but are we just being corralled in front of the slaughterhouse?

So it would be a shame if the Donald got in, appointed another jewish communist to the Supreme Court, launched WW3 against Christian Russia, redoubled the injustices of obamacare, and declared amnesty to 20 million invaders. And all that is not inconceivable.

My own support for the Donald can be summarized under just a single point which has already been made by others: if we don’t solve immigration, we won’t solve anything. It will be curtains for the founding stock of America. It is kind of like a man bleeding to death, but in reverse. You have to stop the bleeding before you give him medicine for his kidneys. We have to stop the alien blood from entering the body before we wrangle over a marginal tax rate of 36% vs. 38%. If we lose this one, our marginal rate will be 1000%. “Maybe not now, but ten years from now” [Godfather]. Trump may betray us on immigration: the others certainly will. Thus, it follows rigorously from Bayesian probability that Trump must be supported.

My second point is like unto it: we are not really voting for Trump, we are voting for solidarity with the millions of “silent majority” types that have suddenly found a voice again, and are emerging from the shadows. Only if our people find each other and prepare to take a “last stand,” is there hope for victory, humanly speaking. We need to establish connections that might survive even one more betrayal.

The most serious counter to these considerations is represented ably by Rev. McAtee who also speculates why Christians are drawn to him.

He gives a number of reasons why Christians should not vote for Trump.

One reason is the moral ambiguity of Trump’s past life. But I answer: if Trump violated his marriage vows, that would disqualify him from being trusted to take the oath of office — if we were not already living in the insane asylum. Shackled by alien forces to the interior wall of the nuthouse as we are, there is only one question for the purported rescuer: do you have bolt-cutters and dynamite? We can ask about the wives later.

Another reason is the flip-flopping. Again, this is like a guy that shows up in the dungeon and beckoning shouts, “follow me, I’ll get you out of here.” At that moment, do we object, “but five years ago, you said, ‘let them eat cake’”? No, we follow him, because he might get us out, and he can hardly make it any worse. For certain, no one else will get us out.

I know that as good evangelicals we are supposed to blurt out, “that’s wrong: the Lord Jesus Christ will get us out.” But what they perhaps fail to note is that the Lord sent many men of ambiguous moral stripe to rescue His people. He uses means, typically, and those means do not always stand muster to our Puritan standards. The story of the book of Judges is one where the people repeatedly reach such a dire straight that they can but call out to the Lord for deliverance. Let us do that; and also not look away in disgust when a Samson appears on the scene.

Certainly, I am not advocating a lesser of two evils. I haven’t voted since 2006, and that not because of laziness. (All the more, when the evil is so intense we can’t even tell for sure which is the lesser, as with McCain and Yomama.) I am only saying we can support a leader that might lead us out of the forest, when the alternative is certainly die of starvation and exposure in the wilderness. In my mind this is quite different than the lesser of two evils.

Then there is the abortion, the faggotry, the socialism. Again: we will not solve these problems if the immigration continues. And indeed, Pastor Brett admits

Actually, this is the one that almost pushes me into the Trump camp. I agree with many experts who contend that if we lose on immigration we lose on everything. One this issue I  have become a “one issue voter.”

So at the end of the day, we should be in violent agreement. We might be Souterized, but in this case every known alternative is just as bad. The obstacle seems to be whether Trump has been exemplary morally, and can be trusted. Of course he has not been, and cannot be. Now let’s go out and vote for him.