Why good people vote for Trump

10
1785
Citizen-Letters-3

I love how media and political elites feel it is their sacred duty to explain to themselves why the deplorables do what they do.

The latest example of this pathology is Chuck Todd’s op-ed, offering the insightful speculation that “good people” vote for Trump because they have been taught to believe “fairy tales” in church, and are therefore disposed to believe Trump’s lies.

It would be easy to excoriate Todd on a few different levels here. His disdain for Christians, his misunderstanding of Christianity, his disdain for Trump, his delusion that Democrats somehow don’t engage in misinformation or deception to achieve their political ends, etc.

But I want to focus on a few key elements.

One goes to the proper functioning of our democracy. The press is supposed to be impartial and to criticize both sides fairly and even-handedly. That makes politicians accountable because their misdeeds are brought to light and then can be evaluated by voters or the courts.

But that isn’t happening in our society. The press, as exemplified by Todd’s comment, have decided that only one side of the aisle need be investigated because only their leaders and their voters are beneath contempt. At best, even if they are “good” in some way, they can still be dismissed as fools because they are pre-disposed to believe lies.

If that is the case, then Democrats can practically do or say anything and count on not being held accountable, while Republicans can and are criticized not only for their errors, but for whatever the media-political machine want to accuse them of.

This is why Trump was not only investigated but labeled criminal by the press for colluding with Russia, when in fact the Mueller investigation proved no such collusion happened.

So, while Democrats lie about their policies, lie about their goals, lie about their opponents, and lie about American society in general, Republicans must defend themselves from libelous, specious accusations rather than focus on actually governing. This is not good for our country.

The other problem with Todd’s quip is that it does really highlight the animus towards Christianity that is rife within the media and political elite. This attitude is a real threat to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

Already reams of articles and legal complaints have been issued to justify denying religious people (read: Christians) their rights. Whether it is the attack on Hobby Lobby, or the Little Sisters of the Poor, or the cake maker in Colorado, the Left shows that if your opposition to their agenda is based in any way on the Christian faith, they have carte blanche to come after you like Orcs charging the gates of Minas Tirith in “Lord of the Rings.”

The First Amendment, which explicitly protects religious belief, is a mere speed bump in their effort to eliminate Christians from the public square and people like Chuck Todd will not only condone it, but cheer it on since Christians are nothing but fools who believe the fairy tales of their holy books and their besotted rulers.

What a lovely way to view your “enemy.” I may not like Chuck Todd or what my friends on the Left have to say and think about many issues, but I do not dismiss them categorically as simple-minded fools. I know that are trying to do their best, even if their core assumptions contradict what I believe to be true and reasonable.

So what we have here again is the wanton destruction of civil society and civil discourse. When you dismiss your opponent as an irredeemable idiot, then there’s nothing from stopping you from dismissing his ideas in toto and forcing your views on him at the tip of a gun.

This is the attitude the drove the Communist revolutionaries and one that has plagued mankind in various forms for millennia. I hope in 2020 we can move away from such destructive attitudes and embrace the mutual quest for truth, beauty, and the public good, unafraid to be led where facts, reason, and careful analysis lead us.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.

10 COMMENTS

  1. Government participation in marriage has been mostly to regulate the quantity and quality of the breeding stock and/or its offspring. Think about it. Marriage licenses (and blood tests) exist to prevent incest and spread of disease. Abortion wasn’t about “women’s health” until the feminist movement. Abortion was created to prevent the birth of sub-standard babies. Both Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hilter had strong parallel beliefs about this. Even China’s one child policy, which followed their 2-child policy has to do with offspring of a marriage. Those states and religions that encourage bigamy do so to stimulate more breeding – not the health and entertainment of the husband.

    The US tax code allows exemptions and deductions based upon the assumption that the mother stays home to raise the kids and the tax laws encourage that. Same thing with employer-provided health care insurance. Of course the gay invasion that demanded the inclusion of their second partner or spouse has caused most companies to drop that free spousal option for everyone. Thanks a lot you selfish non-breeders.

    And child support payments from divorced fathers? – mandated by government and self-explanatory. Even the horrible government idea of using government money to pay single welfare moms a bonus if they have kids without a father, has its genesis in encouraging breeding. What’s next – a childless divorced gay second partner getting a subsidy from the government? Do you see how idiotic all this looks to a regular person?

    None of this was ever a problem for almost 2,000 years but now everything is a problem and everything must change. The combination of attention-getting activists and lawyers and weak or creative judges have lost control of our country. And of course once you start giving out benefits to any group for any reason and then try to correct that, you are a bigot or a racist or something else bad, so we have crossed over the tipping point and are in the beginning stages of a great decline.

    • Your last paragraph epitomizes the warped sense of reality that many staunch conservatives believe. “so we have crossed over the tipping point and are in the beginning stages of a great decline.” <—– This garbage right here is what defines who you truly are. How awful and terrible your pathetic existence is. Boooo hoo hoo! If the changes surrounding mankind truly disturb you then, by all means, pray to your God for a speedy exit. Truth be told, you don't need your God to make it happen.

      As ones of a higher order, upright and with opposable thumbs, we were destined to evolve. Is it possible you didn't receive the memo? Or maybe the memo didn't specifically state "Evolve even after the age of 60."

      There are many truths in your post, but many misnomers as well. The main reason employers stopped fully paying for spousal healthcare, is due to the rise in cost of healthcare premiums. The relatively low percentage of gay spousal coverage is negligible as many gay couples each receive their own healthcare coverage because they both work. It would appear that you think that homosexuals are some kind of leech on society when in fact they are quite the opposite. Most conventional families are now dual earners in order to afford the things beyond necessity – we're all in the same boat with that. In talking with a number of gay couples, marriage shows commitment, just as it does for heterosexuals. As well, marriage also helps to navigate assets after a lifetime together – rights of survivorship is just as important to gay couples as it is to the rest of us. Who are you to deny that?

      America continues to evolve and you can thank your God for that. Places in this world like the Middle East have not and I trust most of us don't want to live like that. You can embrace the change this life affords us and get busy living or you can fight it constantly and get busy dying – it's your choice.

      • Good job LA Morons. You are a talented writer and have a future as a Progressive person or writer. My response was about government intervention into marriage. Your response shamelessly switched over to the emotional and personal advantages of gay marriage. Good job.

        3 points. 1. Free spousal health care costs went out of control after AIDS related health care and death was put into their new category. 2. Opposable thumbs and heterosexual marriage were both alive and well 2,000 years ago. 3. You don’t need marriage to pass your assets along to anyone. Use a will. Write it down. Whatever you want will be done. You don’t need government to do this. Enough about that.

        Yes, I will die. Thanks for referencing that – twice. Don’t worry, its gonna happen soon enough. I only grieve for my country and grandkids. They deserve better than a country and a government in decline. God bless all of you – unless we can’t say that anymore.

        • My response addressed your original points as you presented them and from all appearances that sent you into a bit of a tizzy – poor thing.

          You go ahead and wail, gnash your dentures, and try to make us believe that all of these problems were due to homosexuals, but it only serves to inform us that you are a closed minded neanderthal that has stopped living.

          • No gnashing here. Legal homosexual marriage as a discussion subject is the same as abortion – discuss and argue all you want, just be aware that not one single person will ever change their opinion because of your arguments or mine.

            My gay cousin and his lifelong partner were married as soon as it was legal in their state. They have been together 30 years, are quite happy, have seen no significant economic advantage or disadvantage from that marriage and are very much non-active in the gay community. Reason for the non-activity is they estimate the 3% of the total US population identifies as gay, 1% are definitely gay and live and let live types which is their group; another 1% are mostly gay – some recent and some lifelong and are very active in politicizing the movement thru political activity, demonstrating and recruiting; the other 1% are temporarily gay as an experiment or have a desire to show off or belong to a group. That last 1% contains the transgender branch and those who think there are more than 2 genders and no rules for bathrooms. Gays in the first 2 groups despise those in the 3rd group. This is from a true gay couple.

            My own thoughts are that I won’t argue with their numbers or groupings, but must note it appears that all groups liberal, conservative, gay, straight, religious, black, hispanic, oriental, athletes, airline pilots, newspaper editors, retired folks, school teachers and many others all have some small % that are extremists who will do things that embarrass the larger % of that group. It would be best if we all recognize that and don’t condemn the larger group because of the actions of a few uncontrollable and misguided individuals seeking attention. We all struggle with that. I know I do.

  2. Cal – Why do you continue to print these diatribes of Trey Hoffman? He just watches Fox News all day and night and actually believes that somehow white Christians in America are being persecuted. His conservatives hold the executive branch, half of the legislative branch, and the judiciary, yet he whines about somehow being oppressed. His president has told over 15,000 verifiable lies since taking office, and yet somehow prevarications of his opponents are threatening him. Christians blatantly impose their theology on pregnant women and determining who can and can’t be lovers, but somehow this keeps him from enjoying his unlimited ability to pray, worship, and congregate with other believers. Do Fox News viewers ever tire of being the eternal victims?

    Enough! Truth is stranger than fiction.

    • I think Trey is a regular contributor. He used to be a reporter in Fayette and Coweta I think.

      Anyhow Christians are in fact under attack right now. The latest salvo by the gay invasion is against the Methodist or Lutheran Church. They have to split because of gay marriage. Presbyterians did that a couple years ago in PTC. I never understood this until my old retired minister explained the issues churches have with membership and marketing (yes, marketing) to new and younger people who are likely to support the church financially.

      Apparently nowadays the church has to be “inclusive” which is code for accepting the idea and concept of gay marriage just because the Supreme Court said it was legally ok. To me the real Supreme Court is the Bible and it pretty clearly says its not ok. But if the church wants members and regular donations it has to be inclusive.

      This is a pretty good example of why government should stay out of religion. And religion staying out of politics would be a good thing as well.

      • R.M. – I see the recent splits of the Christian mainline denominations as an internal struggle among their members, not an external attack. Apparently, the memberships are struggling to determine if ancient behavioral standards should be applied to 21st century Christians or if Jesus’ golden rule is more applicable. The government is not directly intervening, and churches -big and small – can conform to any dogma whatsoever, no matter how nonsensical.

        I strongly agree with you that government should stay out of religion and that religion should stay out of government. Look only to the Middle Eastern turmoil to see how detrimental it is to allow theology to trump reason and compromised practical considerations. American Christians decry Islamic-based government while attempting to transform U.S. policy to conform with their religion. Blind faith in any dogma is a recipe for disaster. The most important wall to build in our country is Mr. Jefferson’s wall of separation between church and state.

        • Yes indeed STF, the church/government wall is the most important.

          I still think the entire gay/trangender push on our society is an invasion on some level and I do resent it. I’m fine with bedroom privacy, but when it comes out in my face and my wallet (having to help pay for gay spousal benefits) I do indeed resent that. Maybe I’m just old fashion or not “woke” whatever that means, but to quote Dan Cathy and Barack Obama “To me marriage is between a man and a women” I am allowed to believe that and I do.

          So then, if we agree religion should be kept out of government (and vice versa) why can’t sexual preferences be kept out of government (and vice versa)? Huh?

          • Because government makes laws that affect married people. No matter if you think it is right or not, homosexual relationships have been among mankind and will continue until humans do not exist. Married people benefit from certain things that the government has deemed appropriate. Why should homosexuals that have committed to one another not enjoy those same benefits? Why should “those people” not be granted the same rights as others? If you’re dead set on “those people” not being married, then get government out of all marriages. See how that works out.