DJT is a force of nature. More than that, he is a preternatural entity; larger than life; a once-in-every-500-years event; a cartoon, superhero figure. Problem: he is So good; he is So bad. The human intellect tends to the binary: good/bad. Children already want to know who the good guy is. We know that, notwithstanding glaring sins, our good guys include Abraham, Moses, Sampson, David, Solomon, Peter, Augustine, Churchill, Paton, JFK, MLK. Notwithstanding good qualities, bad guys include Pharoah, Pilate, Judas, both Herod's, Nero, Attila, Hitler, Stalin. On the other side of death, at the "particular judgment" we receive a final, absolute decision: good or bad. On our side of death, at a funeral, we can generally, with some confidence, say "This was a good man." Practically, in everyday life, we make judgments: "My son, stay away from him;" "I would not go to Jeffrey Epstein's island if I were you." "I would NEVER vote for him."
And yet, moral life together in this world is dense with moral ambiguity. A wise, mature intellect entertains ambiguity very often. Ben Laden surrendered his wealth and gave his life in service of his God. Bernie Madoff lovingly sheltered his own family from participation in his Ponzi scheme. Saddam, on his execution platform, graciously thanked the American soldiers who had been guarding him in decency and dignity before he exchanged curses with his the Shiite executioners.
This dense, mysterious ambiguity resides in every human heart, until death. The best saints have sin. The worst sinners have good. Every saint has a past; every sinner a future. And so we dare not judge. But we must judge, all the time. Jeffrey Epstein's behavior was depraved. Yet, as we judge, we moderate with humility: absolutely we do not judge his heart. We do not know his history. His intentions. We judge, of course; but we surrender final, absolute judgement to God. As we recognize our own capacity for evil. As we commend Jeffrey and ourselves to God's mercy for us sinners. As we dread God's wrath on sin.
Trump's Policy: a Mixed Bag
Playfully, I offer an evaluation of some policies, good and bad, on scale of 1-10.
Good: History of defense of unborn (+10), of family (+9), of woman sports (+6), of religious rights (+9), against DEI (+7), closing of border (+9), arrest of criminal immigrants (+9), Abraham Accords (+8), crackdown on crime (+5), alliance with Israel against Iran and surrogates (+7), DOGE (+2). +81 Total.
Bad: Ukraine and failure to deter Putin (-10); arrests of non-criminal immigrant here without documentation (-6); weaponization of DOJ, FBI against personal enemies (-7); disregard for Constitution and Fed, Supreme Court, etc.(-8); discontinuation of aid to poverty overseas (-7); tariff policy in its incoherence, volitility (-5); weak strategy against China (-7), tax policy (-4); tolerance and complicity in starvation in Gaza (-5), MAHA (-2). -61 Total
By this calculus, his policy is a net positive +20: the good outweighs the bad. On policy, I clearly favor Trump.
But I am at heart a moral philosopher, not a policy wonk. What follows below carries more weight.
Moral Influence on Nation
Good: Overall populist, religious defiance of hegemonic, cultural liberalism of elite, singlehandedly defying "arc of history" (+10); decisiveness, confidence, courage, fist-pumping virility, resiliency (+10); reassertion of American global influence (despite ideological isolationism) (+5); respect (if flawed) for God, family, country (+5). +30
Bad: Contempt for many, all who oppose him (-10); blatant disregard for truth and fact (-10); flaming narcissism, emotionalism, effeminate personalization (-10); excessively combative and polarizing of nation (-10); Jan. 6 betrayal of nation and especially Vice President Pence (-10); boastful unchastity and disrespect for women (-8); volatility, incapacity for stable, coherent policy, impulsiveness (-5); ostentatious greed and use of public office for family wealth (-7). - 70 Total
Net moral evaluation: -40. As a moral influence, he is beyond decadent; he is depraved.
Management Competence
At the very high level of Presidency, this means mostly delegation: choice of cabinet. His first administration was, in my view, striking in competence and (right leaning) moderation. They were a fine balance to his disorders. His new cabinet is weak in that they all cater to him. Rubio, Vance and Bessent are all capable, but also subservient. His first cabinet would have gotten a +25. His second -20.
Entertainment
National politics is management, policy, morals and...last but not least...entertainment. JFK was the first prominent politico-celebrity. Reagan the second. Trump surpasses both. If you are not in the grip of Trump-Derangement-Syndrome, you must get a kick out of him. My wife has been in an anti-Trump mood since the election, but everytime he talks on Bret Baier of Fox she erupts into laughter. We cannot help ourselves. Before anything else...politician, diplomat, policy decider...he is celebrity, a performer, a nightclub act, a cisgendered-heterosexual drag/drama queen. He is simply hilarious.
I have always followed national politics. It is in part a study of history-in-the-making. It is a moral exercise as I am an obsessive moralist. But it is also entertainment. Equivalent to professional sports. DJT is in a league of his own: GOAT!
For sheer entertainment quality...which is not nothing...I give DJT an extra 20 points.
Final total: policy +20, moral influence -40, management -20, entertainment +20 = -20.
On the whole, his bad outweighs his good by substantial 20 points.
Would I Vote for Trump Now?
This explains why I voted for neither candidate in 2016, 2020.
If I were to measure Biden/Harris it might look something like: policy -25, moral influence -25, management -25, entertainment value -25. Probably a perfect negative 100. No ambiguity or ambivalence here!
If Trump were running against Biden, Harris, Newson or Pelosi today, I would run to vote for him.
If he were running against a normal Democrat who was not fanatically pro-choice and had some redeeming quality (competent Hillary, sincere/endearing Bernie, gorgeous/effervescent AOC, eccentric Federman, reasonable Shapiro) I would abstain from voting.
If by some miracle a competent, moderate, partially pro-life (Joe Manchin) were to run, I would happily vote against Trump.
I am proud that in my own immediate family half did not vote for either alternative in 2024, a third voted for Trump with misgivings, and maybe a few for Harris.
I am not asserting some moral equivalence; nor aspiring to transcendence of this politics. I voted for Trump in 2024. While he is worse than I expected (based on his first term), I have no regret.
Compulsive Binary Certitude, Aversion to Ambivalence
Today, very few entertain the ambivalence about Trump expressed here. There is a compulsion to view him as demonic or messianic. When I remind Catholic liberals of his Supreme Court appointments, they disparage and insist that he is insincere, his heart evil, void of any good intentions. No hesitation in displacing God as judge of the soul. When I point out his moral depravities to conservatives, they dismiss them as minor imperfections. Most of my family is distressed by my vote for Trump. But I have also been accused of suffering TDS, failing to love the sinner, and doing moral damage by criticism of him.
I am entirely on the conservative divide of our family, but I have sympathies with the Left and comfortable in disagreements with both sides. But this statement of ambivalence will be received by some on each side as betrayal. For many it is an pure binary: us against them. If you criticize us, you are with them, a traitor.
My oldest grandson, running track and studying finance at Fordham, has conservative friends. They DARE not say anything good about Trump in class there. What happened to the Jesuit tradition of vigorous, respectful argument?
I know very few that entertain the ambivalence expressed here. Perhaps 5%? A good number are confused, ignorant or indifferent. But probably close to 40% on one side see him as horrific; another 40% on the other side as wonderful. Zero irony, nuance, ambivalence.
What causes this emotionalism, this rush to extreme judgment, this resentment? It appears that both sides feel threatened, vulnerable, endangered. "THEY...are taking over!" It is the commies, the cultural Marxists, or the racist fascists! The sense of victimhood is intense. A feeling of being powerless, overwhelmed, close to being defeated. And so a suspicion, a paranoia that is well short of psychosis but becomes normal in our enclosed silos. "THEY are taking over!"
I will speak primarily to my fellow conservatives. Let's take a deep breath. Relax. Say a prayer of thanks. THEY are not taking over. The tide in the moment is in our favor. But the nation is evenly divided so that neither side is going to take over.
Even if THEY take over, lets relax. Trust in God. Do his will in all things. We know that the world in under the domain of the powers and principalities, under the Dark Lord. It will be that way until Christ returns. But God and the good always do and always will prevail, if in darkness and trial.
National politics is not nothing; it is not everything. It effects maybe 5% of our life. What matters is God, family, work, friends, vocation, duty, charity, forgiveness, contrition, gratitude, virtue and joy.
Spirit of Charlie Kirk
Before his death this week, I only knew his name and imagined him as a Rush Limbaugh or Steve Bannon, far right MAGA guy. For these I have strong ambivalence: they are good and bad.
I have been blown away by learning about him and watching clips. Did not graduate college. He simply loves God, his family and his country. Strikingly energetic, articulate, forceful, wholesome, youthful, idealistic, positive.
He is considered racist for a remark about feeling less safe with black pilots. To be real: if an airline implements a quota system (4% Eskimos, 2% Albinos) to compensate somehow, simple math suggests the Albino or Eskimo as a minority hire may be less competent. It is the quota system that disparages the minority, not the common sense passenger.
Most important of all: he was eager to speak with his opponents! Willing to listen to and communicate with his adversaries! Risked his very life to connect with his enemies!
This is AMAZING!
This is exactly what we need right now. Drop the baseball bat, the knife, the stone. Look your brother in the eye. Listen to him. Reveal your own heart and mind to him.
I ask my liberal family and friends (really everybody) to listen to the heart-piercing 15-minute talk by his widow Erika Kirk, delivered last night. Less than 48 hours after losing her husband. She is a devout Catholic and also a zealous Evangelical. Studying for a doctorate in theology at Liberty University. Miss Arizona beauty queen. An entrepreneur and activist. You will be touched by her love for God, her husband, her country and the Church.
I invite my conservative family and friends to silence. Let us be quiet. Take a deep breath. Grieve this beautiful life. Mourn with his family and friends. Honor his legacy. Let's talk with our enemies; love them; forgive them; pray for them.
This murder was a singular act by an isolated, deranged, devil-possessed young man. Let's not blame THEM.
May God take this amazing young man to himself!
May God console Erika, her children, the family and friends!
May all that is best in MAGA prevail, and all that is bad diminish!
May all that is best on the political Left prevail, and all that is bad diminish!
May Tyler Robinson, the killer, repent and receive just retribution and the mercy of God!
May we be freed from victim-complex, suspicion, resentment, and rash judgement!
May we be wise in judgement, clear in the truth, humble before mystery and ambiguity!
May we come together as Americans, in mutual respect and affection, to care for each other in truth and in love!
No comments:
Post a Comment