Virginia: A Trump Referendum?

There’s no way to sugarcoat for Republicans the results of Tuesday’s elections, especially in Virginia, where prognosticators thought the governor’s race would be close. It wasn’t. Republican candidate Ed Gillespie lost by 9 points to Democrat Ralph Northam.

It’s difficult to argue that the fault lies wholly with Gillespie when the results were the same down ballot also. The lieutenant governor and attorney general races were also Democrat victories. The most stunning outcome is that a House of Delegates, which Republicans controlled with a super-majority, is now likely to reverse course and be controlled by Democrats—a few races are still too close to call, but even if Republicans retain a majority, the margin will be slim.

New Jersey’s elections were also Democrat gains, as Gov. Chris Christie has become increasingly unpopular in the past few years.

Back to Virginia. Polling shows that of those who voted, 17% were voting because they ardently supported Donald Trump, but nearly double the number, 33%, voted for exactly the opposite reason: they ardently opposed Trump.

You can’t have that kind of disparity and expect a good outcome for Republicans. Most commentators I’ve read see what happened in Virginia not only as a referendum on President Trump but a harbinger of what might await Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections.

It’s conceivable that they could lose control of both houses of Congress in 2018. The more vulnerable house is the Senate, and if that goes Democrat, all who were hoping for a reworking of the Supreme Court will see their hopes dashed. No Democrat Senate is going to confirm a solid conservative constitutionalist to the Court.

Trump will continue to nominate should vacancies occur, but I predict that, because he will want to be perceived as a winner, he will abandon the quest to find good conservatives and will instead promote nominees acceptable to Democrats. That’s what happens when someone without principles is awarded the authority of the presidency.

I do believe this last election was a referendum on Trump, and it is a warning. Personally, I wish Republicans had heeded all the warnings many of us gave during the Republican primaries in 2016, but nothing can be done about that now.

Trump’s character, more than his policies, is what turns many people off. Consider his response to Gillespie’s defeat. Immediately he jumped on Twitter to make it clear that it wasn’t his [Trump’s] fault. Gillespie lost, proclaimed Trump, because he didn’t tie himself closely enough to the president.

Massive ego can never admit fault.

All indicators are that Gillespie would have come much closer, perhaps might have won, without the albatross of the Trump presidency around his political neck.

Some angry Trump supporters are saying that Republicans who are not enamored of Trump are happy with the Virginia results. Well, I know that’s not true for me. I can never be happy with a turn of events that allows the Democrat agenda to advance.

My sincere hope is that Republicans can regroup and offer real solutions so that the electorate sees the folly of following the Democrat vision. The next two years will determine whether they are up to the task.

The Hope & the Agony of Politics

I’ve never been a utopian when it comes to politics. I’ve always known heaven won’t be created on earth. Yet, along with that realization, I’ve maintained a commitment to instilling Biblical values into politics as much as possible. When government follows policies based on Biblical principles, I believe we get closer to the ideal, regardless of the pervasive sinfulness of men.

This past political season was a jolt to my hopes. Faced for the first time with two candidates for president who never should be allowed close to the Oval Office, I had to go another route with my vote. My conscience constrained me.

What bothered me most was what I consider a nearly wholesale abandonment of principle by those who call themselves conservatives, and even worse, those who are my fellow Christian believers who ultimately decided that principles no longer mattered in this situation.

Note: this is not an indictment of many who struggled with their consciences and voted for Trump because they couldn’t imagine the alternative. My concern is with those who have become unapologetic apologists for a man regardless of what he says or does.

Yesterday, I read a column by Erick Erickson that echoed what I’ve been feeling. I’m going to share some of his pertinent comments and intersperse mine. Erickson feels betrayed by politics and by those he thought were his spiritual/intellectual companions. He says that, although he’s always been a Republican, he no longer has a home in that party.

I understand how he feels.

On the right, a party that used to be centered around the idea of smaller government and individual empowerment is instead captured by its own personality that centers around a strong man in Washington and whatever he wants.

I have argued for a constitutional understanding of government for more than thirty years. I thought Republicans, on the whole, agreed with that perspective. Instead, I’m seeing far less concern for that now that “we” have a supposedly strong man in power.

Erickson then addresses the Christian community that has sought, like I have, to return Biblical principles into our governing (especially after the ill effects of the Obama tenure):

Christians are supposed to find some peace in the world by knowing that there is a last day and they are on the winning team. But right now a bunch of American Christians are looking to political solutions for spiritual problems and convincing themselves they’re making a Heaven on earth. . . .

So many people going to church on Sunday looked at Trump and called him a Cyrus, but increasingly this looks like a Maccabean revolt. Sure, they threw out those they saw as pagans and set about purifying temple America, but things did not exactly go well for the people or the kingdom thereafter.

Of course it was all downhill to Herod and the first coming, so maybe it’ll all be downhill from here to the second coming. That increasingly looks likely as the world goes mad, this country included.

Hyperbole? Not from where I’m sitting. That’s my perception also.

He then switches to what he would like to see in politics; I’ll share a few of his dreams:

I want a new party, and a conservative one where conservatism is not defined by beating the other side, but by pursuing the best policies.

I want a party that is pro-family and structures the tax code accordingly and fights for school choice so parents can get their kids educated instead of indoctrinated.

I want a party that is pro-life and that does not run from the Bible.

I want a party that does not define people by the color of their skin or where their families came from, but sees us all as part of the American experiment.

And I want a party that is beholden to ideas, not men.

I will add my “amen” to all of that. And with Erickson, I can also say that I, at one time, thought that existed. Now I’m not so sure. You see, I’ve not changed, but my party has. Ronald Reagan used to say that he hadn’t changed, but that the Democrat party he had always been a part of was the one that moved away from his beliefs.

What happened to a conservatism that was based on ideas, not nationalism? Caring for one’s nation is good, but there is a line that can be crossed. When does one’s devotion to the nation become a substitute for devotion to God?

Here’s one more short paragraph from Erickson’s piece that resonates with me:

To the extent that I have changed, though, I think I have changed for the better. I have a harder time reconciling my faith to my politics and see so many of my friends trying to squeeze their faith into their politics. I would rather go the opposite way and connect my politics to my faith, giving up those things that cannot be reconciled.

One of the key concepts I’ve tried to communicate to students, and to anyone else who will listen to me (I guess that’s why I write this blog) is that you start with Scripture and then make everything align with that. You never start with what others say is true and then do your best to inject Scripture into it, thereby making a false attempt to Christianize something that is not Christian at all.

I’m going to continue on the path of making God’s truth my cornerstone. I will not bow to the political gods who say I should set my Biblical principles aside for the sake of a few Supreme Court justices or some temporary victories via executive orders.

I want to look back on my decisions and not experience deep regret over my subordination of God’s ways to man’s ways. He calls us to be faithful, and that is what I intend to be.

Reviving Obamacare Repeal

A final attempt this year at Obamacare legislation is coming up for a vote in Congress next week. Will it advance the principle of eventually overturning the [Un]Affordable Care Act or will it leave too much in place? I’ll come back to that, but first some context.

Despite assurances to the contrary from progressives/Democrats, Obamacare fails on nearly every promise. It is not affordable and insurance companies are pulling out regularly. In some areas, there is only one company taking part, meaning consumers really have no choice.

Those who can’t bear to think of it going away are blind to its disastrous nature:

And when the word “entitlement” gets attached to anything, people feel they are, well . . . entitled. People worry, so they cling to false promises and ignore the reality.

Republicans have used Obamacare repeal and replace as a rallying cry ever since 2010. Many are sincere; others just wanted to stir the base to get reelected. When Republicans finally took both houses of Congress and the presidency, they had their chance to show their true colors. For some, the true color was yellow. The move to remove stalled.

Repeal would be easy, we were told. No problem. When it didn’t turn out that way, voters were given a substitute promise.

That hasn’t happened either, by the way.

Now we have a proposed bill that doesn’t repeal most Obamacare regulations, pre-existing conditions are still covered (too popular to touch), and it keeps spending money at a rapid rate.

So it should be rejected?

Here’s where principle comes in. If a new law moves the ball down the field, so to speak, and gets us closer to where we should be, isn’t that worth supporting? Take abortion, for instance. I believe all abortions are wrong, morally wrong. Some would say that any bill that allows any abortions at all to remain legal should be rejected. However, I would look at such a bill and say instead that many thousands of innocent lives can be saved with it and it should be passed.

It would get us closer to where we need to be.

This current Obamacare modification bill does the following:

  • It repeals the individual mandate.
  • It repeals the employer mandate.
  • Its block grant approach puts state governments in charge of the funds, allowing states to develop their own system, thereby reducing control by the federal government.
  • It defunds Planned Parenthood.

For all those reasons, especially the last one, Democrats will not support it.

For me, as I look at those benefits of the proposed bill, I believe it will advance the cause of eventually overturning this monstrous system. I therefore hope it will pass.

It’s one last opportunity this year to make a dent in something that never should have become the law of the land in the first place. Republican senators should find their courage, set aside petty concerns about whether their state will get enough funding, and vote to take this significant step in the right direction.

A Bitter Deal

All the drama in the Trump administration and in a dysfunctional Republican Congress has overshadowed the effort by Democrats to re-energize their base and try to figure out what regular Americans are really like. Perhaps the best development in the six months of the Trump presidency has been the irrelevance of the minority party.

As if to emphasize their irrelevance, they’ve concentrated on coming up with a new slogan, one that’s supposed to provide confidence for voters that they know what they’re doing. And what did they come up with?

What is it with Democrats and “deals”? Apparently, they think the public will look back fondly on FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal and fall in love with this rehashed slogan.

Somehow, I doubt it. Those of us with some historical context might see a different connection:

If you think that worked out just fine for Russia, you probably are thrilled by the slogan. Individuals with active brain cells, however, might not see it that way:

All of this sloganeering, of course, has as its primary goal to return Congress to Democrat control in 2018. The party is hoping to attract candidates who can win, although I can understand why some might be reluctant to board this ship.

Actually, the only thing Democrats have going for them in the next election cycle is the incompetence of Republican leadership, both in Congress and in the White House. If that can be turned around, Democrats will remain the minority party. But that’s a big “if.”

The Interminable Obamacare Drama

A lot of voters had high hopes that Obamacare might be on the verge of extinction. Have you ever heard of hope deferred?

Democrats, of course, despite all the evidence to the contrary, think they have given the country a wonderful healthcare plan. Maybe it just needs a little tweaking, they say, but it’s fundamentally sound.

Try telling that to those who have seen their premiums skyrocket and deductibles so high they will never get any benefit. If only Republicans would work with them, Democrats claim, we could get the job done right. Right.

Let’s be honest. For many Democrats, Obamacare was to be the first step toward complete government control of healthcare.

Republicans campaigned on ridding us of this sick attempt at healthcare. They apparently didn’t think any further than the promise of getting rid of it. The most amazing thing, to me, is that they weren’t prepared for how to do so. This is political incompetence of the highest level.

Promises, promises. Cartoonists have not shied away from exposing this hypocrisy.

So what have we seen this week thus far? The Senate, only with the aid of VP Pence’s tie-breaking vote, was allowed to go forward to discuss the issue. Then two votes were held. The first was on the Obamacare-Lite bill that was at least somewhat strengthened by Ted Cruz’s amendment allowing more choice for the consumers. Defeated.

Then there was the resurrection of the bill that every Republican senator voted for a couple of years ago, the one that came much closer to outright repeal (though not fully). If passed, the Senate then could have proceeded with a new plan for replacement.

Defeated again. The saddest spectacle was the “no” vote of a number of Republicans who had voted for the same bill previously and who had promised their constituents they would do so again.

If many Republican voters are angered by this display of hypocrisy, it would be understandable. What is to be done?

Yes, it’s a problem with hypocritical politicians, but it’s also a problem with gullible voters who keep believing their promises. Don’t take their words at face value; examine their records. Be an intelligent voter.

Where will the Senate go from here? Will it pass anything, just to say it did something? Will it then go to conference with the House version (also not very good)? If you have two bad bills going to conference, you end up with an even worse one afterward.

This drama will not be played out soon.

Repeal Obamacare? Really?

I’m doing my best to give the benefit of the doubt to Republicans. I really am. But what is one supposed to think when one is promised something year after year, then that promise appears to evaporate?

The word “repeal” seems to have lost its meaning over time. Or at the very least, it has been redefined:

Most analyses of the proposed bills offered by the House and the Senate conclude that they fall far short of repeal, and that, in fact, they keep the essence of Obamacare while tinkering with only some aspects of it. Citizens/voters have an adequate reason to be confused.

Mitch McConnell confidently stated that the Senate would be voting on its bill prior to the July 4 break. Yesterday, that confidence melted away to nothing. Too many Republican senators (though not enough, to be sure) have come out in opposition to the bill as it currently reads. They want changes to move it more in the direction of something that at least looks like repeal.

Republicans can only get this through with a minimum of two defections, but now there are six. And they know they can’t get any help at all on the other side of the political divide:

Democrats continue to live with the fantasy that Obamacare works, no matter how wrecked it is. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans to stake out a principled position for a free-market solution, yet what do they do instead?

I’m all for taking steps toward the ultimate goal, but is that what this is? Or are we simply driving the same old heap going over the same old cliff?

It’s time for principle to manifest itself, if indeed any of that still exists in the GOP. I’m grateful for those few senators who are attempting to remove the lipstick from this pig and who are desiring real change. May they hold fast and move this closer to actual repeal.

A Compromised Principle, Unfortunately

The guideline I try to follow when considering whether I support a policy action is whether it actually advances the position I ultimately want to see enacted. I have stated that stance in these words before and will do so again:

A compromised principle leads to unrighteousness, but a principled compromise is a step closer to the principle’s ideal.

For instance, on abortion, I don’t take an all-or-nothing approach. If a proposed bill decreases the number of abortions, I support it because lives will be saved. I then hope for further steps that will get policy even closer to my ideal.

Obamacare repeal is now on the front burner in Congress. I’m trying to figure out whether what the Republican Congress is proposing is truly an advancement in repeal—a principled compromise—or if it is instead a compromised principle.

I’m willing to be patient if I know that the proposed bill is only a first step toward an effective repeal and replacement. I also know that some compromise is probably necessary due to lack of unity among Republicans on what should be done. I don’t really envy Mitch McConnell’s job:

The problem, as this political cartoon illustrates, is that some of the ducks are more like chickens—they are afraid of losing their prestigious Senate seat by supporting something that will anger too many voters.

The House bill already was rather weak; the Senate bill, which was released yesterday, is, by most accounts, even weaker, as most commentators predicted it would be.

Already four senators—Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and Ron Johnson—have declared they cannot support it in its current state. They say it does nothing to reduce premiums and it leaves most of the infrastructure of Obamacare in place. Even the principal architect of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, gleefully declared that this proposed bill keeps Obamacare basically intact.

Obamacare’s regulatory scheme remains untouched; insurance companies will continue to receive subsidies (from taxpayers, keep in mind); it says it will reform Medicaid (but not for a number of years, so who really believes that will happen?); Planned Parenthood is defunded (for one whole year; after that, it reverts back to current funding); the individual mandate and taxes do go away, but all the regulations continue as before.

Those four senators who said they cannot support the bill are now going to try to strengthen it. If they don’t succeed, and they stay firm in their opposition, it will go down to defeat, and rightly so.

Why rightly so? It’s not enough of a principled compromise; it leans heavily toward a compromised principle.

How often were we told by Republicans that once they got control of Congress and the White House that they would destroy the Obamacare monster once and for all? Well, here’s the reality:

This is so sad, it’s hard to know what else to say.