Trump is the Best Ugly Option

By Greg Ryan, Assistant Professor of Political Science

Oct 19, 2016 -

We are presented with a very difficult choice this year. As I regularly tell my students, among the possible winners of this election there are only UGLY ALTERNATIVES. From a Christian perspective, we can argue about whether there ever was a ‘Christian Era’ in American politics, but there is no argument that if that era ever really did exist that it is over now. Politics and religion are separate realms that overlap in certain areas. While the US government does not and never has represented the kingdom of heaven on earth, we as Christian citizens do have a responsibility to select leaders who both see to the common good and protect our right to worship and live our lives openly as Christians. We cannot know the future, but I believe that a Clinton presidency represents the worst prospect for both the American common good and for religious liberty for Christians.

Character may be an in important consideration in some presidential elections but it is not an overriding issue in this election. Neither presidential candidate in this election is a paragon of moral virtue; indeed, both of them appear to have major character deficiencies. Yes, there is video evidence of Trump’s vulgarity and disrespect for women (which merely confirmed what many of us already suspected), but Trump hasn’t been running for president for decades. Hillary Clinton and her husband the former president have been more careful in allowing cameras in the room, but this should not encourage us to believe that they possess higher character than Trump. During the last quarter century we have been made aware of many allegations against Hillary and her husband, some of which may have been false, but plenty in which the Clintons simply ‘beat the rap.’ In this election, character is a wash.

As to experience, both candidate make their respective claims in business and government fields. In reviewing Trump’s and Clinton public accomplishments, both have held major positions of responsibility and both have had their share of successes and failures. However, whatever relevant experience Hillary Clinton claims from her tenure as Secretary of State is dubious. I would venture that no Secretary of State in the 21^st century (from either party) has achieved any important diplomatic success, as the State Department has simply become a facilitator for continuous US military intervention abroad, interventions which have produced no enduring political successes and cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and incurred ever more resentment toward the US from the rest of the world. Hillary was not responsible for all of this but she did play her part and proclaims that she will continue on the same course.

Regarding the fate of American Christianity in this election, Trump is likely to be friendlier to Christianity than Clinton is. Whereas Trump’s performance on issues related to Christianity is uncertain and he has always been something of a WILDCARD, there is no doubt what Hillary Clinton’s position is. Trump is more likely to nominate conservative judges, more likely to protect religious liberty and less likely to push for removal of tax exempt status for churches that continue to preach against gay marriage and against transgenderism. Hillary will certainly nominate more socially liberal judges, has advocated increasing restrictions on religious liberty, and is more likely to push for removal of tax exempt status for traditional Christian churches and parachurch organizations. Among the issues most important to this university is that Christian students can continue to apply for federal funding for their education. Trump is more likely to maintain the current policy; Hillary is more likely to overturn it. Trump is by no means the BIG CHRISTIAN that he on occasion has claimed to be, but he is likely to do more to protect our religious liberty than Hillary Clinton.

Regarding the common good, whatever his inexperience in government, Trump at least represents the possibility of change. Hillary Clinton is the establishment candidate in this election; she has been ‘qualified’ by the powers that be to continue the course that both major parties have pursued in the 21^st century and to ignore issues that both major parties have ignored. We can expect that if she is elected she will continue to favor big business, a liberal social agenda, and the continuation of US led globalization (more war, more sanctioning of illegal immigration, more trade pacts [although she denies the last]). It is possible that Trump will turn out to be as bad HRC, but it is also possible that he might have limited success in stemming the tide of social liberalism and advancing the interests of a majority of American citizens.

Nearly all major Western countries are facing a reckoning regarding their non-citizen populations. Trump acknowledges this and proposes solutions however imperfect they may be. Clinton, on the other hand, professes that we are on the right course and that continuing to bring large numbers of non-citizens into the United States will improve the common American lot. Trump advocates attempting to negotiate with Russia, even making a point to contradict his running mate, stating that the US should not pursue regime change in Syria if it escalates the possibility of military conflict with Russia. Clinton seeks regime change in Syria, even if means increasing the prospect of military conflict with Russia. Trump represents a broad and growing movement in the Western world that questions the benefits of unchecked globalism; Hillary Clinton represents the establishment view that ever increasing globalization is our salvation. This is the overarching issue of the campaign: Clinton, as all US major party candidates in recent memory have done, advances the notion that globalization is good for ALL and good for everyone ALWAYS. Trump refuses to offer us more hollow promises about the benefits of globalization and acknowledges that politics remains a zero sum game and will always involve trade-offs. His policy statements, garbled and somewhat inconsistent though they may be, could possibly put America on a more realistic course for the future. A Clinton presidency will certainly not be kind to Christianity, and her adherence to the pathological direction that American politics have taken since the Cold War may push us over the cliff.