At base, all countries are based on some form of religion/philosophy.  Politics is ethical principles applied to interactions between groups of people, and ethical principles are the core values established by religion/philosophy.  Our country was founded on Christian principles (albeit imperfectly).  By the turn of the twentieth century, the “cracks in the foundation” created by the imperfections allowed a foothold, then a takeover, by secular humanism.  The intellectuals of the Progressive Era changed the culture, and the politicians of the New Deal/Great Society applied the new values to the political scene.

Today, the Bible Belt areas have finally awakened to the understanding that the new culture spells the demise and destruction of their values.  But the Left has always understood their mission to mean the end of the Christian religion/philosophy.  The two cannot coexist as the core values of a country/government for long.  One Truth implies One Ethic implies One Politics.

For years I told my friends it was too early to get involved in politics; people’s values were not ready to support a political change.  Most disagreed with me.  Whatever, it appears (the first phase of) the political change is upon us.  What are conservatives/Christians to do?

The stock answer I hear to that, usually unasked, question is, pray.  That’s a necessary answer, yes, but it’s inadequate.  God also calls us to action.

It’s time we started working feverishly to “catch-up” the cultural values to the new political scene.  Every Christian needs to make a conscious effort to “take all thoughts captive” for the truth.  To search the Bible diligently concerning what it has to say about justice, oppression, and the role of government.  What does it say about materialism, the sanctity of both vows and contracts, and about nihilism and egotism?

My sense is that the current political “revolution” (which is more sparks than fire, I’m afraid) is riding more on warmed-over values and tradition, not a renewed vision of what Biblical values applied to today’s world would look like.  If that doesn’t change, the Trump era will be just a hiccup in the country’s drift to fascism.

Politics is the end-game.  It starts with our view on how we treat our fellow man.

It’s speculation, but…

It occurred to me while I was watching the news today that I’m watching chapter two of the Trump political show.  I was fooled by it, at first, during the primaries, but this looks a lot like round two.

I remember how, during the early primaries, Trump dominated the airwaves and media by the stupid and outlandish statements he’d make.  And the major media fell all over itself poking fun and telling what a stupid person this was who thought he could be president!  But in a game where name recognition is a major factor, he reaped millions of dollars’ worth of publicity for nothing, even while building a solid following.  His domination of the media shut out all opposition, including from the better, more truly conservative Republican candidates as well as the Democratic candidates.

Now, I’ve been baffled by the way the White House seems to be picking a fight with the media over such frivolous topics as the number of people on the mall for the Inauguration and, perhaps more important but still surprising, whether he would have won the popular vote if not for voter fraud.  Of course, the latter is important, and should be investigated if any evidence is available at all, but it’s not the kind of battle that should be conducted in the media.

But, while the media is full of indignation over these issues, Trump has quietly gone about getting some substantial things done – starting to dismantle Obamacare, supporting the oil pipeline, setting the stage for new trading relationships, etc.  And while the more important issues have indeed been covered, the dominant media voices have spent a lot of time on non-issues.

Modern politics is a circus, no doubt, but I wonder — just who is the clown?

It is hard to find a more sniveling, hypocritical group of “adults” than the Left has proven to be.  Remember the howls of anguish when Trump said he might not support the election results if he didn’t win?  To say such a thing was paramount to denouncing democracy, said the hand-wringing Left, conveniently forgetting Florida several elections ago.

But then came the election, and Trump’s win.  Perhaps ungraciously, but Clinton did concede the election.  But I’m beginning to wonder if there is another Democrat or Left-wing advocate in the country that has.  Immediately we were shown evidence of what democracy means to hundreds of intellectual offspring of public education as they took to the streets protesting the results.  After sifting through their reported comments, the bottom line seemed to be that a victory by Trump was, ipso facto, unjust

Then we had the spectacle of the election results of key states being contested.  Unlike in Florida, the ultimate question was not just a verification of the vote counts.  This time, the ultimate aim was to allay questions about the total structure of the voting process, about the vote being “rigged” or “hacked.”  Trump, famously, had said the voting was rigged, meaning the parties that were supposed to be neutral were obviously not.  But what the Left meant by their accusation was that cheating was involved, vote stealing, we used to call it.  Here in PA, the courts threw the case out, saying there was no evidence to justify legal intervention in the certified results.  In Wisconsin, that was proven true there too – Trump gained votes as the recount went on.

Finally, in a last-ditch effort to pull victory from the obvious defeat, the Left has embraced the idea that the public’s votes don’t mean anything, and the Electoral College should vote for the “best” candidate, regardless.  Even a big-government Republican would be better than Trump, so Democratic electors should be free to vote for such a candidate.  So off to Court they went again, to see if they could get a judge to overthrow the laws certain states have requiring a state’s electors to vote for the winning candidate.  They “contended that the law binding their vote to Colorado vote winner Hillary Clinton violated their First Amendment rights and the intents of the Constitution’s framers.” (per today’s AP)   Uh, if true, what would their voting in disregard of the voter’s wishes mean for the voter’s first amendment rights?  What does it do to the concept of democracy?

Political scientists are fond of saying that war is simply politics by other means.  I think that is backwards.  Politics is war by other, less harsh, means.  That has always been the Left’s definition of politics.  It’s just that, for the first time in many years, they had to expose their hand.