The old Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” seems to have landed on both progressive and anti-Trump alike. Both are on the horns of a dilemma, that being the fact that the Bible grasping, gun clinging Joe Sixpack public wholeheartedly approves of the President’s actions since he took office.
Writing for the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone separates those who evaluate the Trump administration into two distinct camps (Examiner)
“Substance and style. It’s easy to get them confused, or mistake one for the other. And though they’re never entirely unconnected, exactly how much so is a matter of debate. This is especially true when it comes to evaluating President Trump’s performance — a word particularly ambiguous in his case, as referring either to oratorical style or to policy substance.”
Mr. Barone analyzes what has been accomplishment versus criticism. His conclusion?
“So whatever you think of the style, you have to admit there’s significant substance there.”
In today’s National Review, Victor Davis Hanson pens an excellent article furthering this same analysis and conclusion: (National Review)
“Paradox: How does a supposedly bad man appoint good people eager to advance a conservative agenda that supposedly more moral Republicans failed to realize?”
The paradox lies in those persons who rail against Trump the person while at the same time fulsomely praising both his appointments and governance.
“The brief celebration of Trump’s selections was almost as loud as the otherwise daily denunciations of Trump himself. Trump’s equally inspired decisions, such as the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and Jeff Sessions as attorney general, presented the same ironies. Most of these and other fine appointments came amid a near historic pushback against Trump, mostly over what he has said rather than what he’s done.”
It is at this point where I think he hits upon the existential question facing the Never-Trump or begrudging anti-Trump Republicans:
“How do his opponents square such excellent appointments with Trump himself? Even bad people can occasionally do good? Again, the point is, How do critics square the circle of damning Trump as singularly unfit while simultaneously praising his inspired appointees, who, if they were to adopt a similar mindset, would never set foot in a Trump White House? How does someone so unqualified still manage to listen to advice or follow his own instincts to appoint so many willing, gifted public servants — at a time, we are told, when nearly the entire diplomatic and security establishment in Washington refuses to work for such a reprobate?”
This is a must-read article because his insightful thesis, his probing analysis, and his rock solid conclusions. He also presents a peek at previous Republican administrations and presidential candidates which isn’t flattering:
“I thought that both Bush presidents were fine and good men and their agendas far preferable to the alternative. But was either in a political position to effect (or perhaps even willing to embrace) the sort of conservative change that the supposedly “not a conservative” Trump might well attempt? Given the hysterical and entrenched opposition, I’m not sure that John McCain or Mitt Romney would have enforced immigration law, frozen government hiring, or embraced Reagan-like tax and regulatory reform, although to be sure, McCain and Romney would have avoided Trump’s rhetorical excesses, his Twitter storms, and his occasional coarseness.”
Additionally, the reason the President is experiencing success is spot-on:
“That irony too raises another metaphysical question: Does the Trump moment come despite or because of his take-no-prisoners rhetorical style? Does the Trump moment come despite or because of his take-no-prisoners rhetorical style? In some sense (to adopt a taboo military metaphor) is Trump a sort of shaped charge? That is, is Trump’s combative coarseness the radiant outer shell that is necessary to melt through the deep state and bureaucratic armor so that the inner explosive of a conservative revolutionary agenda may reach its target intact?”
There are certainly those who would prefer President Trump not embarrass them, more traditional Republicans who prioritize gravitas over accomplishment.But, gravitas doesn’t put food on the table, gas in the tank, or the paycheck in the bank on payday.
For a very long time, God’s elect have been crying out for relief against the torrential onslaught of liberal wickedness. Over the long arc of history, God has amply proven both His right and capability of using whomever He chooses to accomplish His divine plan. Both David and Solomon offer comfort:
One-“When the righteous cry for help, the LORD hears and delivers them out of all their troubles.” Psalm 34:17.
Two-“The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Proverbs 21:1
Which is why Mordecai could pose this question to Queen Esther:
“For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father’s house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?”
Putting it into relevant context:
“Who knows whether relief and answer to prayer has not come to our nation at such a time and through such a man as this?”
I don’t purport to know the mind of God, or the heart of Mr. Trump, but I can recognize how the commitment to the unborn is reflected in a Supreme Court nominee, the VP selection, as well the choice for US Attorney General. Not to mention the new aggressive policy against transgender restroom rights.
This is a fact: Those unborn who will escape murder will not care about the President’s style or his penchant for tweeting. Those young girls who will not be molested in a public restroom are more important to their parents than is Presidential gravitas. However this experiment turns out, I know my Redeemer lives and the Sovereign “I Am” has this world in His hands.