Election Reflection

Well, it's over...and I can't help but add a little I-told-you-so when I point back to my post of July 18 in which I predicted a Trump victory. There! Enough patting myself on the back. Anyway, it's a bit painful thanks to my slightly damaged rotator cuff.

I suppose the first question a lot of folks have been asking is, "How did all the smart people get it so wrong?" Actually, I truly believe they didn't. I believe that all those pollsters saw what was happening but either couldn't believe it, or believing it, tried to change it. In other words, they lied to us. They tried to show the nation that Hillary Clinton had such a lead that all those undecideds might as well stay home on election day or just climb aboard the coronation train and vote for Hillary. Abetting this strategy were the mainstreams who continued to portray Donald Trump as the incarnation of a being they don't believe in (Satan) and Hillary as the elect of another they reject (God). And like all those who lack faith, they are deathly afraid. And so, yes, I believe what we witnessed was -- drum roll -- a conspiracy!

Happy Hillary? Not!

Now that the election is over, those who opposed Trump, all those fearful ones, have initiated a new two-pronged strategy. Okay, it's not so new. It's been used by revolutionaries for centuries. The first thing that must be done is to completely ignore the results of the election. Instead, get the "people" -- the easily led, the useful idiots -- into the streets. Show the world how dissatisfied, how angry, how hurt everyone is. Let the protests grow and evolve into cries for Revolution! Burn and destroy, tear it all down, keep the nation's attention on the protests turned riots so they won't think about the real task facing America.

Hillary Voter Protests Turn to Riots

This, of course, will fail. There will be no revolution. (One reason: unlike the protestors and others on the left, the folks who voted for Donald Trump are the armed citizens. This is the primary reason we have avoided revolution since that messy affair with King George III.) Anyway, it wasn't just Donald Trump who was elected; it was a movement. And I'm pretty sure Trump realizes this. It was this movement that I'm convinced the pollsters and wonks finally recognized and simply could not deal with. Now that the election is over, they realize their only chance to salvage something is to co-opt Donald Trump. And this goal will form the second prong of their strategy.

From now until his inauguration in January we will hear nothing but calls to inclusiveness. We will be told that a divided nation demands a diverse administration, one that represents all the people, not just those uneducated white males who voted for Trump. (Actually, Trump got more of the Hispanic and Black vote than expected. He also got a majority of college-educated white males. And to the surprise of many Democrats, he received a majority of the Catholic vote. The complete demographic breakdown should be interesting.)

But Trump's opponents will be screaming for more than diversity. There will be more...much more. Because Trump has absolutely no experience in governance, they will tell us that he must mend fences with those in his own party who despise him and with the Democrats. He will need many of these wise men and women of the establishment to help him overcome his governmental naiveté and to guide him and his administration through the labyrinthine corridors of the federal government. As we heard often enough during the campaign: Build bridges, Mr. Trump, not walls.

And all those campaign promises? Really, Mr. Trump, you must now accept that most of them are unattainable, no more than useful bones to toss at the hungry masses, but not the sort of things you can actually accomplish. Compromise must be the watchword of the new administration if it hopes to be successful. Of course, our new president will succeed someone who refused to compromise with the opposition, and was praised for his intransigence by the same folks who will demand the opposite from Donald Trump.

We will hear all these things and much more from the not-so-loyal opposition, the media, the soon to be unemployed White House staffers, and from those the voters rejected. But I actually expect Donald Trump to ignore these calls to turn his back on those who elected him. He seems to be a man who, although willing to negotiate, also knows when he holds a winning hand. We shall see.

As a nation, we should be praying for God's continued help and thanking him for all He has given us.

We certainly live in interesting times. 

God's peace...

What More Can Be Said?

Here we are, a nation on the eve of the eve of what may well be the most important election in recent history, and everything is still undecided. In many previous elections the results were often predicted with some degree of assurance. Of course, there have been some big surprises during my lifetime. The John Kennedy win over Richard Nixon in 1960 was among the closest. Ronald Reagan's overwhelming victory over Jimmy Carter also surprised many. And the Bush vs. Gore squeaker certainly grabbed the headlines. But I suppose the biggest upset was Harry Truman's surprising win over Thomas Dewey in 1948.

Dewey greeting New Yorkers

In fact, the first presidential candidate I ever saw in person was the Republican New York Governor Thomas Dewey. I was only four years old in November 1948, and my family had just moved to Larchmont, a New York City suburb, from our previous home in Connecticut. I believe it was either election day or the day before. My mother, my older brother and I walked a couple of blocks to the Boston Post Road (US 1) where a large crowd had gathered. A few minutes later the governor's motorcade appeared and there was Dewey waving from an open convertible. It's one of those distinct, early childhood memories that have remained with me. Dewey, of course, went down in history as the losing candidate who was wrongly declared a winner by some in the media. Perhaps the most famous post-election photograph is that of Harry Truman laughingly displaying a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune and its mistaken headline.

Harry Truman enjoying his victory.

Today we're faced with an election that, regardless of the outcome, will certainly lead to significant change in our country.

Hillary Clinton, a woman whose personal ambition seems to outweigh every other consideration, has proven to be both dishonest and unethical. Remarkably, she and her sycophants don't deny the accuracy of the thousands of incriminating emails; they simply blame it all on the Russians. They seem to have fallen back on an unusual defense: "Yeah, it's all true, but the Russians made us do it" -- a remarkable response to the constant stream of nasty stuff that has revealed what she and her team are really like. It's also a bit curious to discover that even her closest associates don't especially like her. And let's not forget, the emails have shown us that the whole group of them truly despise the Catholic Church. Lastly, she can come across as rather shrewish, a trait that has probably left many men feeling sorry for Bill Clinton.

But it's not only Mrs. Clinton's personal traits that raise questions, it's also her less than stellar record of accomplishments as both a senator and secretary of state. As a senator she accomplished next to nothing. And her tenure at the Department of State was a time of consistent failure -- in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Israel, North Korea -- pretty much everywhere. And she and her boss only aggravated our nation's relations with two of the world's most important and powerful nations, Russia and China. 

Her only qualifications for the presidency seem to be her sex, her many celebrity friends, the deep pockets of her Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors, and her willingness to promise anything to any special interest group that appears on her doorstep with votes in hand. But all these negatives pale in comparison to her avid support for abortion, her future choices for the Supreme Court, and her apparent willingness to toss the Bill of Rights into the trashcan. For these reasons alone I could never vote for her.

This leaves us with Donald Trump, perhaps the least likely (and likable) presidential candidate since Andrew Jackson. And yet, like Jackson, he has delivered a consistent populist message to the nation, one that apparently resonates with a large segment of the population. Barack Obama was elected on a vague platform of "hope and change" and delivered nothing but despair and more of the same. In other words, he did nothing but make an incompetent and impersonal government bigger and more intrusive. Donald Trump promises to change all that, to dismantle, or at least restructure, the intrusive bureaucracy that costs so much and provides so little.

Mr. Trump can certainly be crude and rude, but I suppose this is what makes him so attractive to so many. His political incorrectness is actually quite refreshing despite the language in which it is often delivered. He "tells it like it is" even if the telling isn't always very polite. He's a twice-divorced Presbyterian, a New Yorker, a reality TV star, a billionaire, a hotelier and develop and casino owner, and a generally successful businessman. For many, these are all disqualifiers because they exclude the one prerequisite the establishment cherishes: he is not a lifelong politician beholden to the system and the special interests.

Yes, Donald Trump is no angel, but he seems willing and able to admit this to the world. When a lapse or a misstep is pointed out to him, he simply apologizes and then presses on. This is not typical behavior for politicians and so, again, he has ingratiated himself with a citizenry that is looking for honest, open leadership.

If Donald Trump wins the election, will he come through on all his promises? Probably not. The legislature and the bureaucracy are far more ingrained than he expects, and he must still work within the system. Our Constitution -- what's left of it -- demands this. But one can only hope he will succeed in making some progress and will bring wise and faithful people into his administration. 

If Hillary Clinton wins the election, our United State of America may never recover. God help us.

In the meantime, pray for our nation.

Aniversary Thoughts

Newly Married - Swords Held High

Today is our anniversary! Dear Diane and I married 48 years ago on November 2, 1968. You should not read anything into the fact that it was also All Souls Day, the day we are called to remember all the faithful departed. We didn't want to be married on All Souls Day, but the decision was based on my schedule at the time. I was in the final week of flight training and would be leaving Pensacola only a few days later. It was the only available Saturday. As I recall, Fr. Ryan, the Catholic Chaplain at NAS Pensacola, got a special dispensation to celebrate a marriage on that day. 

Remember the black vestments priests wore on All Souls Day and at funerals? Very somber stuff. Indeed, among liturgists there is still an ongoing discussion about the use of black or white vestments on such occasions. But because we were married outside of Mass, Fr. Ryan just wore a cassock and fancy surplice and stole. We had decided not to have a Nuptial Mass since only my parents, a few friends, and Diane and I were Catholic. Almost everybody else who attended -- and it was a good crowd -- were Southern Baptists.

The Wedding Party and Fr, Ryan

Our schedule today has once again made celebration a bit inconvenient. We decided, therefore, to celebrate tomorrow evening, after our day at the Wildwood Soup Kitchen. We'll go out to dinner at a local restaurant and enjoy a nice meal...I hope. Yep, it's hard to celebrate when life keeps getting in the way.

Now...on to the elections.

Because I cannot imagine Hillary Clinton as our president -- indeed, it's been difficult enough suffering through the past eight years in which the culture of death was so overtly manifested -- I will vote for Donald Trump. I harbor no illusions about the man. And should he be elected I expect he will be differ little from the Republicans who preceded him in the office. They all sounded strongly pro-life, and yet none of them ever did anything substantial to save the lives of the more than 50 million American innocents who have been slaughtered by abortion. Yes, I will "put no trust in princes, in the children of Adam powerless to save..." [Ps 146:3], but will put my trust only in our loving, saving God. 

Donald Trump may have many of us guessing about his true beliefs, but we don't have to guess about Hillary Clinton; we know what she thinks about the unborn: they are simply fodder for the Planned Parenthood killing machine. And anyone who votes for her is simply an accessory to the slaughter she supports.

I can understand those who have decided not to vote for either Clinton or Trump, or who will cast their vote for a third party candidate. I don't agree with such decisions because they only increase Hillary's chances, but I understand the supposed moral dilemma. It's important, however, to realize that all people -- and politicians and politician wannabes are no exceptions -- are sinners. We are all fallible. And so every election involves a choice between the imperfect and the imperfect. All we can do is set aside such inconsequential indicators as personality and race and sex and choose the person who more closely mirrors Christ's teachings and the values we hold dear.

I was also greatly disappointed yesterday when George P. Bush -- Jeb's son and George W.'s nephew -- "speculated" that his uncle would probably join his grandfather, George H. W. Bush, in voting for Hillary Clinton. It's hard to imagine the two Bush presidents voting for this woman, but their personal dislike of Donald Trump seemingly outweighs their love of country and their sense of morality. And make no mistake, everyone's choice in this election is a moral choice. The former presidents' decisions also lead one to believe that their purported pro-life views were really not so strongly held, but were simply a sham, a means to election and re-election. It will be very hard for me ever again to take them seriously. It pains me -- not to admit I was wrong about them, for I'm wrong more often than I'm right -- no, it pains me that these men would vote for Mrs. Clinton. Let's hope that nephew and grandson George is mistaken and the former presidents will let the nation know this.

Isn't it remarkable, though, how this election has made so many of our political and societal elites completely transparent. Not only have we learned much about them via their emails, and tweets, and Facebook rants, but in their anger and their panic they have repeatedly let down their guard and shown us who they really are and what they think of the American people.

Ah, well, I will be glad when November 9th rolls around and the election is behind us. I'm tired of the political ads, the know-nothing talking heads, the polls, the irritating phone calls, and I'm especially tired of the politicians.

Thank God for God. Only He can take the evil we do and bring good out of it. Go ahead and vote, but then get on your knees and ask God to help this nation, to bring it back to Him.

Politics and Politicians

Put no trust in princes,

in children of Adam powerless to save;

who breathing his last, returns to the earth;

that day all his planning comes to nothing.

Blessed the one whose help is the God of Jacob,

whose hope is in the LORD, his God...

[Psalm 146:3-5]

I think, sometimes – perhaps most of the time – we forget that only God saves, and that He, not us, remains in charge. If we look to another human, whether man or woman, to rescue us from the perils we ourselves have created, we will soon be greatly disappointed. Of course, the Lord of History sometimes raises up the least likely individuals to fulfill His plan, so we must look to their fruits if we hope to recognize God’s action in the world.

If you are among the 80+ million Americans who watched the presidential debate on Monday evening, you witnessed two people trying to convince us that they, and only they, can lead our nation to the promised land. Each has a very different vision of what that land looks like and how to get there.

[Full disclosure: I skipped the debate, preferring to catch the highlights the next day -- far less tedious.]

The First Debate

One candidate, Hillary Clinton, plans to follow the same path paved by the current administration in which she was a key player. But she seems unable to recognize or accept that the plan is dysfunctional, and has created far more problems than it has solved. And so she tells us: Don't get all wrapped up in who caused our current problems, because I've got some brilliant solutions ready to go. Her solutions, though, seem more than vaguely familiar; indeed, they're the same leftist approaches that have consistently failed whenever and wherever they've been tried.

Mrs. Clinton is also afflicted with a few other issues. If the polls reflect reality, a majority believe she is not healthy enough to be president. This can be a tricky problem for her. She must convince voters that these concerns are baseless despite all the contrary evidence. And what about Tim Kaine, her running mate? She can't focus too much on his presidential qualifications without seeming to confirm her own health issues. Lots of webs being woven here.

But perhaps more troubling for Hillary Clinton are the large numbers of Americans who simply don't trust her to tell the truth. I suppose it all began years ago when she mobilized her team of sycophants to provide cover for her husband's "indiscretions." She did so by attacking the women, so many women, on whom Bill preyed. Impeached but not convicted – his sins, after all, were the same as those of his judges – Bill has been rehabilitated by the folks who matter.

Bill stumping for Hillary in NH -- Enthusiastic Women?

But Bill is only one chink in Hillary Clinton’s honesty armor; consider:

• Her removal from her House Judiciary Committee staffer job because of incompetence and lying;
• The whole Whitewater debacle;
• Her tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire;
• The "cleansing" of the White House travel office;
• The vast right-wing conspiracy that she claims was at the heart of her husband's problems;
• Her “flat-broke” claims after leaving the White House;
• Her speaking fees -- the pay for play, quid pro quo deals with Wall Street firms and foreign nations;
• The ongoing email-national security scandal and associated corruption of her State Department staff;
• The Benghazi lies and "What difference does it make?" attitude.

For me, however, it is her extreme stance on abortion that disqualifies her. How can anyone who so strongly supports the brutal killing of the most innocent and helpless among us be qualified for the presidency? This is the same reason I neither voted for nor trusted our current president, Barack Obama.

Oh! It's a "Person" but without rights...

The other candidate, Donald Trump, is an enigma, perhaps the most unlikely of presidential candidates. New York businessman, reality TV star, off-the-cuff stump speaker, as brash as his home town with an ego to match, Donald Trump has apparently caught on with many Americans. A multi-millionaire, he is viewed by his supporters as too rich to be corrupted by other people’s money. Many Americans are tired of the professional politicians who seem to love spending their constituents’ money on anything and anyone that will help their reelection. These same voters seem to regard Mr. Trump as the outsider who will clean house and remind the pols that the people are still sovereign. Could be...but that’s the problem with outsiders: they have no political track record. They force us to focus on the personal.

And so Donald Trump has had to define and refine and re-define his vision and plans for the nation. He’s had to leave the shallows and wade into the deeper waters of specifics, and that, some believe, will cause him problems. I don’t agree. Donald Trump has said so many things that the mainstream media and their fellow travelers consider outrageous, and each time he gains ground. That same media, following the lead of his opponent, have attacked him and his “deplorable” supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” and pretty much any other “ist” or “phobic” they can think of. The result: his poll numbers continue to rise. 

Trump: College Supporters

The elites in Hollywood and the media, as well as those who roam the corridors of power in Washington, are flabbergasted. How can this be happening? One can understand their confusion since few have spent much time among the hoi polloi, the masses in fly-over country who struggle to pay their bills every month. Interestingly, minorities – generally considered a lock for the Democrats – are beginning to show some interest in Donald Trump. I suspect he will draw a larger percentage of the Black and Hispanic vote than any of his recent Republican predecessors. 

And then there are the “Never-Trump” Republicans, really a mixed bag of neocons and establishment types, along with a few former opponents with hurt feelings. I’ve never really trusted the neocons because of their subtle dismissal of those “permanent things” that traditionally form the foundation of true conservative thought. Most gravitated to so-called neo-conservatism from the far left, and still seem partly connected to their big-government, Marxist roots.

Bush Presidents and Hopeful

Even the Bush family, the most establishment of all establishment Republicans, have come out against Donald Trump, with the elder George admitting he’ll likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Jeb Bush, who was just kidding when he signed that pledge to support the Republican nominee, is now encouraging Republicans to vote for the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson, a man who makes Donald Trump look positively Socratic. As for George W. Bush, I suspect he’ll probably sit this election out. 

I’ve said all along (see post: July 18) that I expect Donald Trump to win the election, largely because the stakes are so high. He's also generated a level of enthusiasm among his supporters that Hillary Clinton will never be able to match. As for Mrs. Clinton’s appeal to women – “Elect the first female president!” – it doesn’t outweigh all her negatives. Unlike President Obama who gathered in over 90% of the Black vote, Hillary Clinton will be lucky to draw 55% of the female vote.

Although not a Trump supporter, I will probably vote for him. To vote for a third party would waste a vote, and I can think of no third party worth my vote. From our perspective as citizens and voters, politics must always be the art of choosing the least imperfect. Is one candidate the lesser of two evils, or is the other the evil of two lessers? I think the latter. 

In the meantime, I'll try to avoid politics in future posts and just put my trust, not in princes (or princesses), but in God alone, the Lord of History.

Pray for our nation.

Mother Teresa and the Unborn

Like Pope Francis, I know I'll have trouble now calling Mother Teresa "Saint Teresa." She has simply been Mother Teresa to the world for too long, and given her radical humility, I suspect the Church's newest saint won't mind if we continue to call her what we've always called her. Yes, she is a saint, but during much of her 87 years on earth she was also a loving mother to so many of God's forgotten children. Whenever I read that unique description of the last judgment found in Matthew's Gospel [Mt 25:31-46], I think of Mother Teresa who devoted her life to loving and caring for the least brothers and sisters of Jesus. "Jesus in disguise" she called them. She was truly a loving mother to all God's children.

If you happened to watch her canonization Mass on television yesterday, you will have heard the pope's wonderful homily in which he particularly stressed Mother Teresa's commitment to what she often called "the weakest, smallest, and most vulnerable" among us, the unborn. Sometimes, when I actually take the time to consider the truth about abortion, I find it almost inconceivable that such a horror can exist in a civilized society. To accept abortion as anything other than an intrinsically evil act demands a level of moral ignorance or outright depravity that is beyond comprehension. And yet millions of our fellow citizens seem to have little difficulty accepting this evil as a kind of human right. Imagine that! It becomes a human right to destroy another human being simply because he or she is inconvenient.

People speak today about the many evils that plague our world, but Mother Teresa knew that all these pale in comparison to abortion, the world's greatest evil. Abortion is really the overt rejection of God's love; for what is the gift of life if not the most obvious manifestation of God's love for us? And what is abortion if not its repudiation? I don't see how anyone who believes firmly in the right to abort an unborn child can accept the existence of a living, loving God. To believe in both demands some extraordinary moral and intellectual gymnastics. God's love and His command that we carry that love to others cannot coexist with abortion.

Mother Teresa, of course, knew that love is at the heart of God's call to humanity. In her own brief commentary on Matthew's last judgment, she once said:

I am not sure exactly what heaven will be like, but I do know that when we die and it comes time for God to judge us, he will not ask, "How many good things have you done in your life?" Rather he will ask, "How much love did you put into what you did?”

I remember my own mother once telling me, "What you do is important, but how you do it is even more important." It must be something mothers understand.

Among the more remarkable moments of Mother Teresa's life were those prophetic moments when she confronted the world's elites and revealed God's Word. I've included a few here.

Her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (December 11, 1979) was a remarkable plea to the world to turn to God and accept His love and mercy. It was also a plea on behalf of the unborn:

"The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing - direct murder by the mother herself. And we read in Scripture, for God says very clearly: Even if a mother could forget her child - I will not forget you - I have carved you in the palm of my hand. We are carved in the palm of His hand, so close to Him that the  unborn child has been carved in the hand of God. And that is what strikes me most, the beginning of that sentence, that even if a mother could forget something impossible - but even if she could forget - I will not forget you. And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion."

How interesting that this recipient of the Peace Prize would equate abortion with war and murder, and label it the "greatest destroyer of peace." I suspect that more than a few in the audience were squirming in their seats as they listened to this tiny, humble woman who commanded no armies but did not hesitate to remind them that they too would have to face God's judgment. Here is a video of her acceptance speech:

There were many similar occasions when Mother Teresa lovingly confronted those who had forgotten or neglected God's Word, but perhaps the most memorable was her appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on February 3, 1994.  Her words to President and Mrs. Clinton and that gathering of politicians must have created a great deal of discomfort that morning as she called them to task. Many, perhaps most, were pro-abortion.

"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

"By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

"And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."

I've included a video of her talk here:

And today, two decades later, just look at our world and how violence has for too many become the means to getting what they want.

As the Church celebrates the heavenly canonization of Mother Teresa, another woman is hoping for a worldly celebration as a result of our presidential election on November 8. She too holds some strong, if radically different, beliefs about abortion. Here's what Hillary Clinton said earlier this year in a campaign speech to Planned Parenthood (Januay 6, 2016), the nation's largest abortion provider:

"Politicians have no business interfering with women's personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women's access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I'll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion."

Ah, yes, safe for the mother; deadly for the child. It would be interesting to hear Mother Teresa's response...

Elections and Choices

I would never presume to tell others for whom they should vote. I won't even tell Dear Diane, although whenever we head off to the local polling place, I make sure she knows who will get my vote. After all I have an obligation to share my wisdom with my wife of almost 48 years, even if she chooses in her deeper wisdom to ignore it. Actually, we are almost always of one mind when it comes to things political, largely because we share a common worldview which appropriately drives our voting decisions. 

Today we voted in our state's (Florida) primary election by taking advantage of so-called "early voting". The meteorologists are predicting the arrival of a tropical storm on election day (Tuesday) so we thought it best to vote today. I realize I'm being grossly hypocritical because I'm actually against this now almost universal practice of allowing people to vote for a week or more prior to the official election day. Indeed, this really makes the election day almost meaningless. 

By designating only one day on which elections are held we emphasize the importance of voting for those who will represent us in our republic, and encourage citizens to make a sacrifice or two so they can cast their ballot. Sacrifice is never an option today, so I'm certain this early voting has become a permanent feature. The easier we make things, the less important they become.

This year, at least when it comes to the upcoming presidential election, many think we have been handed an odd choice. I believe I can say without fear of reasonable contradiction that there is real concern across much of the political spectrum. I also believe we can readily assume that no minor party candidate -- e.g., the Libertarian or Green candidates -- will be elected. Admittedly one or more of them could possibly act as a spoiler that siphons off enough votes to influence the outcome. This has certainly occurred in the recent past with George Wallace and Ross Perot the most obvious examples. But it takes no genius to predict that our next president will be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. As I said above, to many it seems an odd choice.

On the one hand we have a woman whose relationship with the truth has been somewhat distant. Ideologically she is a leftist, although I suspect it's more by choice than belief. Hillary Clinton clings to the left because it offers her power. This seems to be her prime motivator. The left, of course, must lie because the left in all its Marxist forms is a failed ideology. It simply doesn't work. In reality it has little do to with helping the working class or proletariat; it's all about power. This, of course, makes it very attractive to the elites, who above all else crave power. They already have wealth and fame, so what on earth is left? Politically, however, one can't openly crave power; hence the lies.

And then there's Donald Trump, the New York businessman and reality TV star who has publicly rejected the political establishment, including that of his own party. During the primaries he embarrassed many of his far more politically connected opponents by beating them soundly, and he did so by changing the rules of political campaigning. Ignoring the grammar of political correctness, he speaks his mind to the delight of his followers, who view his off-the-cuff style as a refreshing change from the usual canned stump speeches of most candidates. But far too many of his comments have also been excruciatingly embarrassing. He has effectively communicated many populist goals, but has been less effective describing how he will achieve them. Faced with such a candidate, the mainstream media, always the useful pawns of the political left, smell blood in the water and are engaged in a savage anti-Trump feeding frenzy.

But with the election just weeks away, Donald Trump seems to have altered his brash, unpredictable style to good effect. And Hillary Clinton, plagued by an expanding battery of scandals, doesn't appear very presidential. Who will actually become our next president is anyone's guess, for the pollsters certainly don't know.

It's easy to place labels on candidates, as I have already done, calling them liberals or populists or conservatives or libertarians, but such labels have little meaning these days. Sadly, the lines of belief between political parties have also become increasingly blurred. 

What separates us one from another today is something far deeper than party or mere politics. As Eric Voegelin made clear, on one side we have those who accept the existence of a transcendent moral order, who believe in the "permanent things" of T. S. Eliot, "the inherited principles, mores, customs, and traditions that sustain humane thinking and preserve civilized existence for future generations" [See Allen Mendenhall, "To Educate in the Permanent Things"].

"But the Church cannot be, in any political sense, either conservative, or liberal, or revolutionary. Conservatism is too often conservation of the wrong things; liberalism a relaxation of discipline; revolution a denial of the permanent things." [T. S. Eliot]

Opposed to these are those who reject these permanent things, who believe that this earthly existence is all there is. These are the ideologues: the utilitarians who admit no authority except that which achieves a desired end; the Marxists whose materialist view of the world excludes all transcendence; and even the true libertarians who accept no limits on human freedom. 

As we go to the polls in November we must decide, then, where each candidate falls. Does he or she believe and act based on the reality of a transcendent moral order, or is the candidate just another ideologue.

Personally, I take a rather gloomy short-term view. I believe our nation has just about run its course. We have come to the point where a near majority of our citizens realize they can demand whatever they like from government, and that the working minority will pay for it. This, of course, cannot continue for long and will necessarily lead to the dissolution of our constitutional republic. We have already seen the start of this as long-cherished constitutional limitations and freedoms have been cast aside by both our courts and our executive branch. Eventually the limited government designed by our nation's founders will either be threatened by a second civil war or evolve into some form of authoritarian or totalitarian state. Civil wars rarely end well and totalitarian states always collapse due to moral decay, corruption, and financial failure.

But over the long term we have nothing to fear because God is in charge. He is the Lord of History and he has raised up men and women to do His work in the world whenever the world turns against His eternal plan. Evil will never triumph.