Flyover Country, Ep. 71: Conservatism with Tom Meyer

 

Terry and Ryan are joined by Tom Meyer, former Editor at Ricochet.com and all-around smart guy. He is given an opportunity to respond to last week’s anti-anti podcast, briefly (and would like to remind everyone that anybody who disagrees with him on the topic of Trump is ugly, bad, and lacking in sexual prowess). However, the bulk of the podcast is devoted to an upcoming series of podcasts designed to discuss conservatism in general. We take questions from liberal friends and hope to create a basic understanding of what exactly it is that we believe. We encourage any and all feedback or disagreement. Please comment in the comment section at Ricochet, and email any questions to [email protected].

.

There are 35 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Inactive

    I’ll listen, but did he answer as a conservative or a conservatarian?

    • #1
    • February 12, 2018 at 11:50 am
    • Like
  2. Thatcher

    Wait a dang minute….this podcast is back??

    • #2
    • February 12, 2018 at 12:40 pm
    • 1 like
  3. Member
    Flyover Country Post author

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    Wait a dang minute….this podcast is back??

    It never went anywhere. :) We explained it on the last podcast. Terry was on some oil rigs that didn’t have any internet or cell reception, and then I was super busy at work, so we ended up accidentally taking a good amount of time off.

    • #3
    • February 12, 2018 at 1:02 pm
    • 1 like
  4. Thatcher

    Flyover Country (View Comment):

    Concretevol (View Comment):
    Wait a dang minute….this podcast is back??

    It never went anywhere. :) We explained it on the last podcast. Terry was on some oil rigs that didn’t have any internet or cell reception, and then I was super busy at work, so we ended up accidentally taking a good amount of time off.

    I didn’t know there was a last one. lol Ok, it’s back on the list!

    • #4
    • February 12, 2018 at 1:04 pm
    • 2 likes
  5. Member
    Flyover Country Post author

    Stina (View Comment):
    I’ll listen, but did he answer as a conservative or a conservatarian?

    I’m still not 100% certain what a conservatarian actually is; in my opinion, a conservative already has strong libertarian tendencies. So when we’re talking about what conservatism is, we’re talking about ideas, not parties. The purpose of this podcast series is to talk about ideology (and hopefully directly engage some liberal ideas and objections and questions). That gives us a good basis for analyzing policy, but we have to do it first…

    • #5
    • February 12, 2018 at 1:05 pm
    • Like
  6. Contributor

    Good to hear you guys back! Nice job Tom.

    • #6
    • February 12, 2018 at 4:03 pm
    • 3 likes
  7. Inactive

    I listened to the podcast today (and oddly enough, as the podcast ended, it automatically started playing the previous episode which I had not finished right at the point where the same topic was discussed.)

    You made a comment that Jonah Goldberg said that evangelicals have said adultery is ok with them and you argued it was more (to use Tom’s phrase) transactional, i.e., they balanced the negatives of Trump’s infidelity against the positives he brought. Either you conflated a couple a couple of comment or misremembered, but as it happened, I listened to a couple of Remnant Podcasts over the last few days when I was snowblowing my driveway 14 times. I don’t remember Jonah ever saying that (full disclosure, I have not listened to all of them) but what he did say on two episodes I listened to over the weekend (one recent one and the one around Thanksgiving with Matt Continetti) was that in the run-up the Roy Moore election, evangelicals were suddenly ok with ephebophilia (he may have said pedophilia, as I have sometimes on here, but the proper term is ephebophilia for Roy Moore).

    That seems undeniable; a bunch of people on Ricochet certainly argued that what Roy Moore did was legal and acceptable. They did not make the claim that you argued for in the podcast, i.e., they still condemn the action but were willing to overlook it in a balancing act. People on Ricochet positively asserted that what Roy Moore did by picking up high school girls in the court house was just fine with them. Some obviously claimed it was all fake news, but many of those went on to say even if it was true, but it was legal and acceptable. Many evangelicals made the same argument (and Roy Moore is obviously closer to the evangelical position on a bunch of issues than Trump is.)

    • #7
    • February 12, 2018 at 4:08 pm
    • 4 likes
  8. Member

    Oh, and be sure to hit “Recommend!”

    • #8
    • February 12, 2018 at 5:07 pm
    • Like
  9. Member

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    I listened to the podcast today (and oddly enough, as the podcast ended, it automatically started playing the previous episode which I had not finished right at the point where the same topic was discussed.)

    You made a comment that Jonah Goldberg said that evangelicals have said adultery is ok with them and you argued it was more (to use Tom’s phrase) transactional, i.e., they balanced the negatives of Trump’s infidelity against the positives he brought. Either you conflated a couple a couple of comment or misremembered, but as it happened, I listened to a couple of Remnant Podcasts over the last few days when I was snowblowing my driveway 14 times. I don’t remember Jonah ever saying that (full disclosure, I have not listened to all of them) but what he did say on two episodes I listened to over the weekend (one recent one and the one around Thanksgiving with Matt Continetti) was that in the run-up the Roy Moore election, evangelicals were suddenly ok with ephebophilia (he may have said pedophilia, as I have sometimes on here, but the proper term is ephebophilia for Roy Moore).

    That seems undeniable; a bunch of people on Ricochet certainly argued that what Roy Moore did was legal and acceptable. They did not make the claim that you argued for in the podcast, i.e., they still condemn the action but were willing to overlook it in a balancing act. People on Ricochet positively asserted that what Roy Moore did by picking up high school girls in the court house was just fine with them. Some obviously claimed it was all fake news, but many of those went on to say even if it was true, but it was legal and acceptable. Many evangelicals made the same argument (and Roy Moore is obviously closer to the evangelical position on a bunch of issues than Trump is.)

    Interesting. I’m not 100% sure where it was that I heard it (on the Remnant podcast or on an episode of GLoP), but it was a citation to some sort of poll. My recollection was that the poll was something like “how important is X?” with regard to the president, and Jonah pointed out that the results had changed drastically from Obama to Trump. As Terry and Tom both argued, there is certainly a bit of hypocrisy there, as you’d expect. Personally, I think there is a bit more to it that makes that hypocrisy something a bit different… and the same goes for the left. In defense of liberals (yikes!), I do think a similar principle applies. They are far more concerned when Trump does something, even if Obama did the same thing only far worse. This is generally because they think Trump is an evil person who cannot be trusted, so when Obama did it, it was ok because he was on their side. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, but somewhat different.

    • #9
    • February 12, 2018 at 5:13 pm
    • Like
  10. Inactive

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    As Terry and Tom both argued, there is certainly a bit of hypocrisy there, as you’d expect. Personally, I think there is a bit more to it that makes that hypocrisy something a bit different… and the same goes for the left.

    I was not on ricochet during the Clinton administration, but many conservatives I knew at the time said infidelity was “disqualifying” for the Presidency (again, I’m not saying that anyone on Ricochet used the phrase disqualifying.) Now that a Republican is accused of infidelity (or wife beating), suddenly we have to balance the good with the bad. It is one thing to say infidelity is bad, but it simply cannot be disqualifying only for Democrats.

    It seems incredibly obvious to me that some people have suddenly changed their mind about whether infidelity is disqualifying. The reality was, it wasn’t disqualifying for Clinton, but because Clinton was a a Democrat, no exaggeration was too much. That is what bugs me. People should stop pretending that their party is all goodness and light and the other party is all evil and darkness. To use Scott Adams language, I find my “filter” that both parties are evil better predicts the future.

    • #10
    • February 12, 2018 at 6:01 pm
    • 3 likes
  11. Inactive

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    That seems undeniable; a bunch of people on Ricochet certainly argued that what Roy Moore did was legal and acceptable.

    You know what annoys me about modern society and sex?

    That we, as a society, think it is a-okay for a 16 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, yet we treat them like children.

    Is it ok for children to have sex with children? No? Then why are we so damn comfy with children having sex with children?

    If you are old enough to consent, you are old enough to consent. If 16 is too young, change the law. But if a 16 year old can’t consent to an adult, then they can’t consent to a teen, either.

    Children having sex is stupid, idiotic, and dyscivic.

    I didn’t see any of the people who are passive on teen sex join in on that post of mine. But I sure saw a lot of accusations thrown around about a guy who didn’t have sex.

    • #11
    • February 12, 2018 at 7:24 pm
    • 3 likes
  12. Inactive

    I would be fine with half your age plus seven encoded in law.

    I would be even happier if people put the boundary of morality well on this side of the boundaries of what is legally proscribed.

    • #12
    • February 12, 2018 at 7:58 pm
    • Like
  13. Thatcher

    One of Jonah’s more clever inventions, along with whataboutism for me but not for thee, is his non-tribe tribe of tribal fingerpointers.

    As if the tribe of anti-Trump conservatives aren’t transactional too. Apparently they have no cable market niches to exploit, books to sell or supporters and funders to placate and entertain.

    Just a coincidence I suppose that Jonah and most of the AEI and Commentary guys dropped any opposition to gay marriage or satirical references to Kennedy’s absurd Obergefell opinion when Paul Singer’s son decided he wanted to marry a dude, right? Suddenly any politician holding opinions on everything gay which didn’t rebuke positions Scalia would have endorsed were mocked.

    Everyone is, in part, tribal, transactional and pragmatic.

    And that’s on the right.

    On the left, you can add mind-boggling cognitive dissonance. Denunciation of Roy Moore as a child molester, standing ovations for Polanski, and raves for Call Me By Your Name as a celebration of the human spirit.

    • #13
    • February 12, 2018 at 8:07 pm
    • 2 likes
  14. Member

    A-Squared (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    As Terry and Tom both argued, there is certainly a bit of hypocrisy there, as you’d expect. Personally, I think there is a bit more to it that makes that hypocrisy something a bit different… and the same goes for the left.

    I was not on ricochet during the Clinton administration, but many conservatives I knew at the time said infidelity was “disqualifying” for the Presidency (again, I’m not saying that anyone on Ricochet used the phrase disqualifying.) Now that a Republican is accused of infidelity (or wife beating), suddenly we have to balance the good with the bad. It is one thing to say infidelity is bad, but it simply cannot be disqualifying only for Democrats.

    It seems incredibly obvious to me that some people have suddenly changed their mind about whether infidelity is disqualifying. The reality was, it wasn’t disqualifying for Clinton, but because Clinton was a a Democrat, no exaggeration was too much. That is what bugs me. People should stop pretending that their party is all goodness and light and the other party is all evil and darkness. To use Scott Adams language, I find my “filter” that both parties are evil better predicts the future.

    I think the big difference is that Clinton did these things while in office. Trump’s former marriages were a known quantity prior to his election.

    • #14
    • February 12, 2018 at 9:32 pm
    • 2 likes
  15. Inactive

    Hammer, The (View Comment):

    I think the big difference is that Clinton did these things while in office. Trump’s former marriages were a known quantity prior to his election.

    Clinton was a known quantity prior to his election.

    I think part of it has to do with changing morals over time (as some on Ricochet have acknowledged) but I think more of it has to do with Trump and Moore being Republicans. What is disqualifying in a Democrat is acceptable in Republican, which means what is really disqualifying in a Democrat is the D and what is acceptable is the R.

    There is nothing inherently wrong that, I would simply recommend that people of both parties be a little more circumspect in the language they use to discuss the personal failings of politicians from the opposite party because it is inevitable that someone from your party will be in a very similar situation in the near future (part of my “Both parties are evil” predictive filter.) And, when you are just coming off vehemently supporting a politician from your own party for his personal failings, be even more circumspect in attacking a politician from the opposite party for the very same personal failings – this is exactly what the Democrats did not do with Trump after spending the entire campaign defending Bill Clinton.

    I have no expectations that anyone from either part will follow my advice.

    • #15
    • February 13, 2018 at 5:01 am
    • Like
  16. Member

    I agree with A. Like I said in the podcast, there definitely is hypocrisy. If Obama had the same reputation as Trump, the outcry from our side would have been deafening. I was actually surprised that there was so much support from the evangelicals. It doesn’t really bother me, as you guys have pointed out, it’s natural for people to worry about the splinter in their neighbors eye.

    At the end of the day all it proves is that people are fallible, self interested, and hate, Hate, HATE Hillary Clinton.

    The only real takeaway should be remembering to be slower to light the torches the next time you don’t care for the opposition. Burning out our allies accomplishes nothing.

    • #16
    • February 13, 2018 at 5:56 am
    • 3 likes
  17. Member
    Flyover Country Post author

    Kaladin (View Comment):
    I agree with A. Like I said in the podcast, there definitely is hypocrisy. If Obama had the same reputation as Trump, the outcry from our side would have been deafening. I was actually surprised that there was so much support from the evangelicals. It doesn’t really bother me, as you guys have pointed out, it’s natural for people to worry about the splinter in their neighbors eye.

    At the end of the day all it proves is that people are fallible, self interested, and hate, Hate, HATE Hillary Clinton.

    The only real takeaway should be remembering to be slower to light the torches the next time you don’t care for the opposition. Burning out our allies accomplishes nothing.

    I’d replace “hate” Hillary with “fear” Hillary. She promised more of the same that Obama brought, but she has a pretty terrible history of corruption and dishonesty. I am not at all surprised that people would vote their own self-preservation and support Trump over Hillary.

    • #17
    • February 13, 2018 at 7:57 am
    • 2 likes
  18. Inactive

    Kaladin (View Comment):
    I was actually surprised that there was so much support from the evangelicals.

    Why does this surprise people?

    Trump – sympathetic and benevolent towards Christians and their beliefs, even if he doesn’t follow them.

    Obama and Hillary – Adversarial, Insulting, and Critical of Christians and their beliefs.

    Why wouldn’t Evangelicals prefer Trump?

    On top of that, most of the candidates in the election were dismissive of the concerns of Christians. Trump was the most vocal on being supportive of Christians.

    Many conservatives don’t think Christians have anything to worry about, including our politicians. Evangelicals think otherwise and Trump had a finger on that pulse.

    It wasn’t about their character or personality. Why is this so hard to understand?

    • #18
    • February 13, 2018 at 8:17 am
    • 4 likes
  19. Inactive

    Back on the main topic of the podcast (how to deal with people who don’t save), I have some aligned but subtly different perspectives than those presented on the podcast.

    The first is “incentives matter.” On balance, I would say that incentives matter is an inherently conservative viewpoint but not entirely, because the left routinely trots out some tax incentive as the solution to every problem. The difference is that the left seems to believe that only the incentives they want to matter actually matter, when in fact all too often, their incentives are counter productive. As it relates to people not saving enough for retirement, one of the problem is that the government has told people that social security will take care of them in retirement, and people have relied on that incentive to not save. A hundred years ago, every family had the solution to not saving enough during your working life, they were called children. You offered care and support during your children’s youth and in turn your children offered you care and support during your dotage. I still remember my paternal great-grandfather would spend a few months at a time with each of his children (one of whom was my paternal grandfather.) When I was younger, I always noted that social security, and its promise of assistance to the elderly enabled my father to move away from the small town in Kentucky where he grew up in a way that wasn’t really available to his parents. I personally benefited greatly from my parents moving away, but in some sense my paternal grandmother is paying for it by living in a nursing home with only a weekly call from her son.

    The other is what I can only call the “currency of need” versus some combination of the “currency of productivity” and the “currency of worth.” I believe I got the notion of “currency of need” from Ayn Rand, but I’ve done some googling and nothing comes up. I thought it might have come Atlas Shrugged, so I borrowed the kindle version from the library and searched on a couple of terms and nothing comes up, so I might be misremembering the source or the original idea. Nonetheless, the way I understand the “currency of need” is that in a socialist society (and let’s face it, our society is rapidly approaching a socialist society if not already there) a disproportionate portion of society’s resources go to those considered the neediest. As a result, people compete on being the neediest because the greater the “neediness” the more of societies resources you get. And, to use an Animal Farm reference, the Boxers of the world produce the resources necessary to provide them to the “needy” but get little of the resources because they cannot demonstrate the “need” beyond subsistence. Inevitably, the Boxers of the world stop working and start competing on “neediness” and society quickly falls apart.

    (continued below)

    • #19
    • February 13, 2018 at 8:26 am
    • 1 like
  20. Inactive

    continued from above

    In a pure laissez-faire society, the people that produce the most get to consume what they produce, so if you want to consume more of society’s resources, you have to produce more. It’s worth noting that in a world where every transaction of voluntary and utility-maximizing for both parties, by producing more, you are increasing the utility of those you exchange with, whereas in a “Currency of need” you need takes away from the utility of others by depriving them of the product of their labor.

    So, what about “currency of worth”? By this I mean, in a charitable world (which America was until the government started taking over charity load), if you needed help, you had to go to a charitable organization and make your case you were worthy of charity. You could do this multiple ways. Most importantly, you could do this through a history of helping others in the same organization. You could also make the case that you simply needed a small helping hand to get through a rough spot and the amount of resources you needed were small and most importantly, temporary. In other words, you had to demonstrate that you were worthy of charity and you were keenly aware that the charity was neither infinite nor indefinite. This gave you the necessary “incentive” to bust your rear end to get back on your own two feet as quickly as possible, and if you did, it mad you more likely to be willing to give a helping hand to the next family in need. This creates a virtuous spiral where charity winds up being directed to those most likely to take full advantage of it and most likely to offer others charity in return.

    Therefore, some combination of “currency of productivity” combined with a charitable system focused on “currency of worth” is stable system that provides the right incentives to maximize the amount of society’s resources available to everyone and allocate some portion of those resources to those who are unfortunate while providing the right incentives to create the next generation, even if only out of selfish need to ensure you have someone to take care you in your dotage. The “currency of need” society, which we are rapidly becoming is a path to national destruction.

    • #20
    • February 13, 2018 at 8:37 am
    • 1 like
  21. Inactive

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    The “currency of need” society, which we are rapidly becoming is a path to national destruction.

    The most obvious example of this is Obamacare’s prohibition on annual and lifetime coverage limits. To use an extreme example, under Obamacare, if a twenty year old required a billion dollars of medical care annually for the rest of their life (say 60 years), we as a society are obligated to provide it. If a thousand or a million twenty-year olds required a billion dollars, we as a society are obligated to provide it.

    Now, you may say it is unlikely that anyone would require a billion dollars of medical annually for 60 years, well, that is because up until a few years, no one would have paid a billion dollars annually to keep someone alive, but now that there is an unlimited pool of resources available to keep anyone alive, I have no doubt that something like that will develop.

    Well over two decades ago (so I’m writing from vague memories), I worked with a kidney dialysis business. I learned that prior to kidney dialysis being covered by medicaid, kidney dialysis was a very small industry because it was prohibitively expensive, so not that many people using this life-extending treatment. A law was passed covering kidney dialysis with the expectation of spending a few million a year on coverage. Suddenly, kidney dialysis centers was easy money for providers, so kidney dialysis centers sprung up in even small towns and the government wound up paying several orders of magnitude more than they expected on kidney dialysis.

    • #21
    • February 13, 2018 at 8:55 am
    • 1 like
  22. Contributor

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    As Terry and Tom both argued, there is certainly a bit of hypocrisy there, as you’d expect. Personally, I think there is a bit more to it that makes that hypocrisy something a bit different… and the same goes for the left. In defense of liberals (yikes!), I do think a similar principle applies. They are far more concerned when Trump does something, even if Obama did the same thing only far worse. This is generally because they think Trump is an evil person who cannot be trusted, so when Obama did it, it was ok because he was on their side. Yes, it’s hypocrisy, but somewhat different.

    I didn’t make this clear in the podcast, but I think hypocrisy isn’t the main issue.

    What concerns me is when we put ourselves in overly high-stakes situations where the case for putting such things aside becomes really compelling. Moore is a nearly perfect example, in that it seems all-but-certain that we could have retained the seat with Luther Strange; unfortunately, some folks felt it was more important to risk everything by selecting Moore, either to put a more populist candidate in place or to stick it to Mitch McConnell. Having made that decision, it was easy (and totally human) to stick with it even as it became an increasingly clear that Moore A) Was going to lose and B) was going to make everyone look dumb.

    Up until the last couple of months, Trump’s election looked like it was heading in that same direction. Though it’s clear that Trump absolutely improved as a candidate from about August onward, it was a close thing that very nearly went the other way (and might well have had Comey’s announcement not come when it did or if Clinton had campaigned harder in the upper Midwest).

    Put another way, a lot of people are understandably in the mood to only swing for the fences. That has some advantages, but sometimes it’s best to get a single or a double rather than strike out.

    • #22
    • February 13, 2018 at 9:08 am
    • 5 likes
  23. Contributor

    Stina (View Comment):

    Kaladin (View Comment):
    I was actually surprised that there was so much support from the evangelicals.

    Why does this surprise people?

    Trump – sympathetic and benevolent towards Christians and their beliefs, even if he doesn’t follow them.

    Obama and Hillary – Adversarial, Insulting, and Critical of Christians and their beliefs.

    Why wouldn’t Evangelicals prefer Trump?

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that Evangelicals supported the president during the general election. I was a little surprised by the enthusiasm some showed Jerry Falwell, Jr being the most egregious (and sometimes hilarious) example. As other people pointed out, Falwell likens Trump to Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus during the course of his introduction and calls him (not for the first time, apparently) “one of the greatest visionaries of our time.”

    And mind you, this was in January 2016 before the primaries had started.

    Obviously, a good deal of that comes from the fact that the alternative was Hillary Clinton* and that all people naturally rationalize decisions they’ve already made.

    (*generally, I wish liberals with exploding heads would realize that they’d probably have won if they hadn’t chosen someone so singularly awful and corrupt as their nominee.)

    • #23
    • February 13, 2018 at 10:00 am
    • 2 likes
  24. Moderator

    I would totally run you a FB group, Ryan. I think you know my price. :>

    • #24
    • February 13, 2018 at 11:25 am
    • Like
  25. Moderator

    Stina (View Comment):

    A-Squared (View Comment):
    That seems undeniable; a bunch of people on Ricochet certainly argued that what Roy Moore did was legal and acceptable.

    You know what annoys me about modern society and sex?

    That we, as a society, think it is a-okay for a 16 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, yet we treat them like children.

    Is it ok for children to have sex with children? No? Then why are we so damn comfy with children having sex with children?

    If you are old enough to consent, you are old enough to consent. If 16 is too young, change the law. But if a 16 year old can’t consent to an adult, then they can’t consent to a teen, either.

    Children having sex is stupid, idiotic, and dyscivic.

    I didn’t see any of the people who are passive on teen sex join in on that post of mine. But I sure saw a lot of accusations thrown around about a guy who didn’t have sex.

    I agree with you, Stina. It’s a dumb idea for teenagers to have sex. They aren’t mentally developed enough to think through all the consequences of their decisions, and we have had so many problems with teen parents over the years, especially in more rural areas.

    • #25
    • February 13, 2018 at 12:28 pm
    • 1 like
  26. Member
    Flyover Country Post author

    J.D. Snapp, All Out of Gum (View Comment):
    I would totally run you a FB group, Ryan. I think you know my price. :>

    I think I can scrounge up a decent bottle of whiskey around here, somewhere. :)

    The problem with facebook is that neither Terry or I would actually ever use the darned thing, but if it included our real names, we’d end up with co-workers and other people discovering a bit more than they need to about our political leanings. I’m happy to talk politics with my liberal friends, but I’m usually super careful about how and when I do it. Facebook seems to destroy all nuance [… Tom takes another drink!].

    • #26
    • February 13, 2018 at 1:59 pm
    • 3 likes
  27. Member

    Esperanto, is actually simple language to learn and the languages that organically come about are often quite complex. Korean is also a simple language to learn but that’s because King Sejong the great orders the Korean language to be remade for the peasants so it was more economical for them to teach their children to read.

    • #27
    • February 13, 2018 at 2:30 pm
    • 1 like
  28. Thatcher

    I want to see Sarah Huckabee Sanders body slam Jim Acosta.

    • #28
    • February 14, 2018 at 1:58 am
    • 3 likes
  29. Member

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Esperanto, is actually simple language to learn and the languages that organically come about are often quite complex. Korean is also a simple language to learn but that’s because King Sejong the great orders the Korean language to be remade for the peasants so it was more economical for them to teach their children to read.

    Henry, it gives me great joy that someone caught my Esperanto reference. From my limited study on the subject Esperanto should be one of the easiest languages in human history because it was created to be so, but like many good ideas with no incentives humans aren’t interested.

    Thanks for the heads up on Korean, I had no idea it was an easier language.

    • #29
    • February 14, 2018 at 8:20 am
    • 1 like
  30. Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Kaladin (View Comment):
    I was actually surprised that there was so much support from the evangelicals.

    Why does this surprise people?

    Trump – sympathetic and benevolent towards Christians and their beliefs, even if he doesn’t follow them.

    Obama and Hillary – Adversarial, Insulting, and Critical of Christians and their beliefs.

    Why wouldn’t Evangelicals prefer Trump?

    On top of that, most of the candidates in the election were dismissive of the concerns of Christians. Trump was the most vocal on being supportive of Christians.

    Many conservatives don’t think Christians have anything to worry about, including our politicians. Evangelicals think otherwise and Trump had a finger on that pulse.

    It wasn’t about their character or personality. Why is this so hard to understand?

    I understand it now that it has happened, but I grew up in a mostly evangelical setting. We had a southern evangelist for a preacher. Every Sunday for years of my childhood was fire and brimstone. Granted I haven’t really spent much time in those settings in twenty years so things have obviously mellowed out. Moral character was THE consideration. No compromise. Twenty years ago Donald Trump wouldn’t have garnered a single vote from evangelicals (edit: in the primaries is what I was thinking, in the general I’m sure some percentage would have held their noses and done it), I have no problem saying this. The idea of a man who writes books and brags about his exploits with women would have been unconscionable. Let alone his lax positions on homosexuality and abortion.

    This is where my surprise comes from. Obviously, a large element of pragmatism has worked it’s way into the community I used to know. Being surprised doesn’t preclude understanding in retrospect.

    • #30
    • February 14, 2018 at 8:33 am
    • 4 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2