Just a quick note today. Congratulations to President-Elect Trump and all those who supported him.
As we all know, elections are contentious issues in our country. Just about half of the country is guaranteed to be disappointed. Many times the winning candidate will speak of unity, or about “being a president for all Americans.” I think that’s noble, but things often go off the rails and that notion falls by the wayside quickly.
So today, I ask that if you’re a Trump supporter interacting with those who supported Vice President Harris, please don’t gloat or spike the football. It could be family, friends, coworkers, or the person you see at the grocery store. Maybe it’s at the Thanksgiving table in a few weeks. If we truly want to move forward as a country under the banner of unity, it’s not helpful to throw a victory in anyone’s face. Let’s assume we’re all Americans and want to move closer together, not further apart.
Maybe this post is reaching you a day or two late and you’ve already been an instigator in some of those “victory!” conversations. I ask that you build people up, not tear them down. Criticize ideas, not people. If an apology is in order, please follow through with one.
And if nothing else, at least the political ads are over now!
Well here we are, less than two weeks out from the election.
We’ve reached the point in election season where polls have begun tightening. This is normal, and is kind of a predictable thing. This explanation for why this happens is going to sound a little conspiracy-theory-ish, but you can go back and look at data from past elections and find it holds true in many cases.
To be honest, polling data isn’t super useful except for giving news commentators something to talk about. If that’s true, why start showing polling information months ahead of the election? The answer is a little counterintuitive. Poll results are released very early for the purpose of beginning to shape public opinion, not to measure it. Pollsters are very rarely politically agnostic. They want to steer the public toward a certain outcome, either by disheartening people supporting one candidate or by making them want to throw in with the winning team. This is why you’ll hear campaigns sometimes refer to their internal polling data. They wouldn’t need internal polling if the publicly available polling was reliable.
All right, so pollsters want to shape public opinion, but why do polls start tightening as the race nears an end? Well, it’s because pollsters aren’t stupid. After this election, there will be another election, and then another one after that. As political races near their conclusion, pollsters begin conducting polls more accurately, enabling their future selves to showcase accurate examples of their past work, including working with solid methodologies and appropriate sample sizes, to potential clients. As those methodologies change, they move away from tactics used for shaping opinion, and more toward those used to capture accurate snapshots of it. One way that’s done is by moving toward a more equal balance of both sides of an issue in the polling data (instead of an early poll of 1043 people comprising 573 Democrats and 470 Republicans, they’ll move closer to a 50/50 split, for example).
Just a note on why Donald Trump’s actual level of support is normally more than what shows up in polls. Political pundits, the news media, and a variety of others have done such a good job demonizing Trump, making people think he’s “unhinged” or a “threat to Democracy,” that people are sometimes reluctant to express support for him to anyone outside their trusted friends/family. They just don’t feel safe being honest with pollsters looking to get an idea of the level of support each candidate has. They’re more likely than Kamala Harris supporters to either skip answering a survey altogether or answer “I’m undecided” instead of verbalizing their “controversial” support for Trump. I think this is one of the biggest reasons Trump’s level of support gets underestimated. I think Trump is more likely to have this “hidden support” than Harris is. If that’s true, Harris’ level of support in the polls is about as good as it’s going to get, but Trump could still have some additional room to run.
As far as the national poll, the Democratic candidate usually wins that one. It’s not how you win the White House, though. Our elections are not decided by popular vote; they’re decided by the Electoral College method. National polling is essentially meaningless. You win the presidency by getting to 270 electoral votes, not by winning the popular vote. That’s why accurate polling from battleground states is so highly sought after.
If you live in a battleground state, you’re probably sick of seeing political ads on TV, hearing them on the radio, or getting them in your mailbox. I can’t help with the TV and radio versions, but I can tell you how to cut back on the amount of junk mail, phone calls, and door knocks from campaign volunteers you receive. Campaigns can be very smart with the money available to them. They don’t often spend money on canvassing or flyers when they don’t need to. Kamala Harris doesn’t need to campaign in Massachusetts or Maryland; she’s going to win those states. It would be a waste of money then, to send political flyers to supporters in those states. That money would be put to better use in a state or area where the outcome is less certain.
You may already know that your voting record is publicly available. Not your record of who you’ve voted for, mind you…your record of past elections you’ve shown up to vote in. Cost-minded campaign officials target the people with a demonstrated history of voting. As early- and mail-in voting begins, election officials remove the names of people who have voted from the pool of remaining eligible voters. This data is available to all campaigns. If they know you still haven’t voted, they see you as someone they still want to send advertisements to. If you want to help a campaign financially without actually donating to them, vote early so the campaign can spend its resources on someone who may still be considering voting. If you want to stop getting phone calls and junk mail, vote early. Doing so will remove you from the list of registered voters still eligible to vote, rather than you.
One final tip. Let’s say you’re not happy with either candidate but will still show up to vote for your choice of Senator and Congressional Representative. Many people doing this will skip over the presidential portion of the ballot. That’s something you don’t want to do. Doing it this way enables somebody without scruples, whoever that might be, to hijack your legitimate ballot and vote for their preferred candidate, having it count as much as every other ballot during a recount. Still don’t want to vote for either of the major party candidates? Choose somebody to write in. I hear Mickey Mouse consistently appears as one of the top write-in candidates. Writing in someone’s name, even if it’s not a real person, prevents the ballot from being misused in that capacity.
Keep the elections in your prayers. No matter where we are two weeks from now, almost half of the country is going to be unhappy with the outcome. Pray that the process would be secure, that people will trust the system, and that the winner would be a president for all Americans. We know nobody in power gets there without God’s allowing them to, but outcomes can still be tough to accept when your will doesn’t line up with God’s.
Well good golly. Things are happening so fast these days, this post will probably be outdated before it goes live!
President Biden has removed himself from consideration for the 2024 election. The poor guy got pressured from everybody to drop out, and he finally gave in before they made it really ugly for him. I can’t say I blame him, though I hope I will have retired at a much earlier age than him! What does this all mean for the 2024 Democratic ticket? At this point, it’s tough to say with certainty. Right now there’s a very large effort underway to portray Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee.
Mind you, that doesn’t mean she’s the best candidate. President Biden endorsed her the day he dropped out of the race, and people rallied behind her very quickly. This is probably a mistake on the Democrats’ part. I acknowledge the short timeline between now and the election drives a desire to quickly coalesce behind someone, but I think Democrats would be better served by taking more time to figure out who that “someone” should be.
Democratic voters have been exceedingly anxious since the Biden/Trump debate, when their candidate’s “A Game” was discovered to be at best a C minus. In hindsight, folks are realizing a lot of people have been covering up President Biden’s decline for a long time now. By comparison, Harris looks young and vibrant, and Democratic voters were quick to rally to her side because they’re more or less excited to have anybody besides the President. Right now polls suggest things are very tight between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, but I expect there to be some changes to the polling as the Veep gets out in front of more cameras or people and starts giving unscripted interviews.
Kamala Harris isn’t known for her gravitas or political acumen. (If you want a few giggles, search YouTube for “Kamala Harris – What can be unburdened by what has been (compilation).”) If she’s named the Democratic nominee, it’s definitely not for her merit as a political heavyweight, and if it’s not for her merit, we’re likely to be consumed by a fresh round of identity politics between now and the election. If she ends up the nominee, she’s going to need someone on the ticket with her who can counterbalance some of her weaknesses. Whoever it is, look for them to be a strong public speaker with a sharp wit, probably from a swing state.
But I’m not yet convinced Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee this cycle. Although many high-level Democrats have endorsed her as their nominee, she still doesn’t have the endorsement of Barak Obama or Nancy Pelosi. If those two give her their blessing, it’s a done deal. Until then, nothing’s for certain. When Biden dropped out of the race it freed the delegates he won in primary elections to vote for whoever they’d like; even though enough of them have pledged their support to Harris to secure the nomination, that pledged support isn’t binding. We may not actually know who the nominee is until the last night of the Democratic National Convention next month. From a strategy perspective, the best thing to do would be to let the excitement over Harris die down a little, get some more accurate polling information from Independents as people get a better handle on who Kamala Harris is and whether they want her as President, and then based on that and whoever else is available, pick your best candidate to be the nominee in a theatrical and dramatic way at the convention. I expect there are two main factions in the Democratic Party right now: the portion very vocal about supporting Harris, and the very quiet portion who’s fully aware of her flaws and weaknesses and is looking for an alternative and a way to install him or her as the nominee without severely disrespecting Ms. Harris in front of the whole world. Something that could increase Harris’s chances would be if Joe leaves the Oval Office before the convention. It would destroy Democratic unity to have Harris be president for just a couple weeks before announcing someone else will run to succeed her.
The irony of all this, of course, is that for all the talk of Trump being a threat to democracy and the Constitution, the fact of the matter is that whoever the Democratic candidate for President ends up being will have become the nominee without winning any primary elections. No everyday citizens will have voted for him or her. Kinda shady to bypass the will of the people, don’t you think? I understand these are unusual circumstances, but the fact remains the next Democratic nominee could be chosen by a small group of powerful people in a dark, smoky room without the electorate’s approval. Realistically there’s not enough time to organize a new set of primary elections so this is largely unavoidable, but this will forever be an interesting little asterisk in the history of American Democracy.
Another question is “What now happens to the ballots which have Joe Biden’s name on them already?” With President Biden forcefully insisting for weeks he’d be staying in the race, and the Republican National Convention having concluded by nominating Donald Trump as its candidate, it’s easy to understand if election officials said “go ahead and print the 2024 ballots using the names Joe Biden and Donald Trump.” Well right now only one of those candidates remains in the race. A very simple question suddenly becomes very complicated: “What happens when people vote for Joe Biden on those ballots?”
It depends on the election laws of the state the citizen is voting in, and we’ve got more than 50 different electoral jurisdictions (states, territories, districts, etc.), each with their own laws. Common sense dictates they’d be counted for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being, but it may not play out that way. The best thing to do would be to move heaven and earth to get new ballots printed with the right names, otherwise Trump may very well end up winning some traditionally blue states on a technicality. If that happens, you can expect another storming of the Capitol Building in DC, this time by Democratic protesters.
In the meantime, look for some countries to take advantage of the U.S. disarray. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea all have something to gain when the U.S. is weak or having a bad day, so be on the lookout for one or more of them to make some kind of move before Inauguration Day.
As always, keep our nation in prayer; we never seem to be short on unrest. No matter who wins in November, half the country’s not going to be happy about it. President Biden is still in charge, so keep him in your prayers as well. And finally, just because your neighbor doesn’t agree with you politically, help ‘em out if they need a hand. After all, Americans should come together when things are tough.
It’s time to take another look at the political landscape and how the 2024 election is shaping up.
Let’s not mince words. Despite Donald Trump’s recent conviction, Joe Biden is the one playing catch up. He recently tied the lowest approval rating of his presidency. His numbers went underwater with the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and they never looked back. The economy is this election’s number one issue, and far more voters trust Trump than Biden there. The only thing Biden really has going for him is the fact that he’s not Donald Trump. He doesn’t inspire much optimism and he doesn’t get people jazzed to head to the polls to vote for his vision of higher taxes, continued illegal immigration, boys competing in girls’ sports, letting violent criminals go unprosecuted, and switching gasoline engines to electric motors using a power grid ill-equipped to support them. If you’re a Democratic strategist taking a sober look at an administration who’s pushed too far left too quickly, your greatest hope, frankly, is for Trump’s recent conviction to sour enough people on him that it lifts Biden in the polls.
I think I’ve predicted in the past Biden would take just enough action to make it look like he was trying to get something done to secure the border. Well, now he has, with an Executive Order cutting back the level of illegal immigration from “inexcusable” to merely “overwhelming.” This is a bad political move for Biden. It’s far too late for his weak executive actions to have much effect at the border, but it’s strong enough to anger many “dissolve the border” enthusiasts planning to vote for him. There’s no real upside. He’s not actually interested in stemming the flow of illegal migration into the country; if he were, he would have taken much stronger executive action, and he would have done it years ago. He’s merely doing this to make it look like he’s tired of waiting for Congress to take action, and like he’s exhibiting strong leadership. (Strangely, the last president managed to take plenty of executive action to secure the southern border.)
I’m going to predict things will play out something like the following manner. Trump’s recent conviction won’t move the polling needle nearly as much as democratic strategists hoped. There will be an initial drop where Biden regains some advantage, but over time that advantage will fade in the polls and the “justice impacted” Trump will obtain an obvious advantage in the polls. As it becomes clear the conviction failed to derail Trump’s candidacy, Democrats will panic. The Democratic National Convention, where the Democratic nominee is officially crowned, isn’t held until August. Even though Americans tend to pay less attention to politics during the summer, it will become harder and harder to hide Biden’s physical and cognitive decline between now and then (in the past month, he’s departed both a college graduation and D-Day commemoration earlier than planned, looking very confused and frail in the process). The preference, obviously, would be for President Biden to withdraw from the race gracefully, of his own volition, citing health challenges and the frenetic pace of campaign season. Nobody can fault him for it; most Americans, if given a choice, would want to retire early, not have one of the most stressful jobs in the world until they’re 86. If his polling numbers don’t show any signs of improvement and he still doesn’t want to call it a career, the king-makers in the Democratic Party are going to have to get creative in coming up with a way to get enough public support to switch him out for some other candidate. If people get excited about change (in this case, Trump over Biden), it’s better to roll the dice and take a chance than it is to bet on a horse almost certain to lose. At this point I don’t know how they would do that, but two possibilities that come to mind are the President’s obvious health challenges and his son’s recent conviction. If the President’s health takes a turn for the worse or he pardons/commutes his son’s sentence even though he said he wouldn’t, the Democratic National Committee may suddenly use that event to say “we need a more energetic candidate to take on Trump” or “we can’t make a big deal of Trump’s legal woes if our candidate has questionable legal baggage of his own.” Success in swapping out candidates that late in the game would either depend on widespread name recognition (think someone like Michelle Obama) or a great resume (maybe a Democratic governor who capitalizes on some well-timed success with national visibility).
Regardless, it’s tough to imagine Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping restraining their military or other activities out of respect for Biden’s charisma, savvy, and strong leadership. Look for actions from both of those dictators to intensify before the elections take place, because they’d rather deal with Biden than Trump and they want to get away with stuff before the possibility of a new sheriff arriving in town. If you want an interesting perspective on President Biden’s physical and mental abilities, listen to what people in their 80s have to say about it. Spoiler alert: they’re usually alarmed that someone with his symptoms is the one everyone looks to in a crisis, because they often know someone with similar conditions, and those folks don’t perform well in high-pressure, rapidly changing situations.
It’s also interesting to see the misinformation from our own American news sources. For example, news networks have often spouted something about Trump being a threat to democracy, but they don’t call attention to the threats Democrats pose. Yes, Trump gave a speech that agitated people right before they rioted at the Capitol, but who has actually tried to bar a candidate from ballots in some locations, or entangle him in oddly timed court cases so he can’t be out on the campaign trail? These are legitimate threats to democracy; this is like, Soviet stuff. If this is what preserving democracy looks like, they’re sacrificing democracy to save democracy. This mischaracterization tactic isn’t just being used in the United States. In Europe, elections earlier this week shifted the power balance toward the political right, and people unhappy with the outcome are crying that this, too, is a threat to democracy. No, this is what’s known as the fulfillment of democracy, respecting the electorate’s choice. What’s being threatened is the power of the party losing seats. Those are two very different things.
Finally, what are we, as a nation, likely to face in the 2025-2028 presidential term? As I list these things, think about the kind of person you want sitting in the Oval Office, and the fortitude, clarity of thinking, and capacity for decision making each of the two major candidates possess.
Putin and Belarus may resume nuclear testing to increase alarm and try to fracture the NATO alliance or gain an advantage in Ukraine (maybe by inciting Ukraine to use up all its remaining air defense missiles because it doesn’t know whether or not incoming strikes include conventional explosives or nuclear explosives).
China has claimed this is the timeframe it will take Taiwan by force. Anticipate Chinese forces blockading, invading, and seizing Taiwan, which will likely lead to the most intense U.S. military action in the Pacific in decades, along with a potential direct military confrontation with a hostile superpower.
There’s a high potential for an economic downturn in the U.S. as a prolonged period of elevated interest rates finally catches up with and affects the nation’s economy.
Those are some of the biggies. There are other things which will affect everyday Americans on a less certain timeline, but are nonetheless noteworthy:
The convergence of advancements in block chain, Artificial Intelligence, medical technology, materials processing (3D printing), and robotics will develop quickly and could rapidly impose major changes on our daily lives. We need to balance responsibility with the ability to innovate, so we can be competitive without our less ethical or less regulated competitors leaving us in the dust.
NASA will physically return astronauts to the moon for the first time in over 50 years at a time when lunar missions from various nations and other “space race” activities intensify.
The Kansas City Chiefs will finally fail to make it to the Super Bowl again (hopefully).
There’s a lot to think about. Pray for our leaders (and potential leaders), even if you don’t vote for them. Our leaders make decisions and take actions that affect us all, so pray God gives them wisdom and clarity in knowing what to do.
The other day my daughter pointed out to me that 2024 is starting out an awful lot like 2020 did. The 49ers are playing the Chiefs in the Super Bowl. This month has an extra day at the end because it’s a leap year. It’s looking more and more likely that it’s going to be a Biden/Trump presidential election. And at least at this point in the year, the Olympics are scheduled to take place this summer as long as a worldwide pandemic doesn’t change things.
Well obviously, I don’t have the inside track on how any of those things are going to turn out (though I’m hoping the 49ers can pull off a win over the Chiefs). Despite not liking to put many political posts on this blog, I feel it’s important to sometimes address things before they happen, hopefully helping you to prepare mentally for what’s ahead.
President Biden is polling abysmally right now. I mean, it’s bad. He listens to extremist advisors and espouses policies that are difficult to justify if the goal is to make America and its economy better (raise energy prices, force electric vehicle adoption in a market that isn’t interested, ban gas appliances, forfeit energy independence, etc.). Between many of his supporters wanting him to do more to punish Israel, along with Independents (and a big chunk of Democrats) saying “you know, I think you’ve gone too far with the border situation,” he’s got a shrinking pool of people he can rely on. At this rate, his only real chance is to make the other Presidential candidates look even less appealing than he does.
Nikki Haley is still in the race, but she’s going to have to pull off some convincing wins here very soon if she wants to realistically remain in the conversation. If she somehow pulls off a massive upset and gains the GOP nomination, Biden’s going to have his hands full trying to convince the country that he can do a better job than she can. I don’t really see her being much more than a nuisance to former President Trump on his path to the nomination, though.
I’m not sure of the latest numbers, but at one point there were over 90 criminal counts pending against Trump. That’s not a small thing. If he’s guilty, he should face the consequences. I do question the timing of the four cases, though. It strikes me as odd that no charges were brought until after it was evident he’d be running again. It seems suspicious that everything seemed to hit at once, almost as though it was a coordinated effort to keep someone in the courtroom rather than the campaign trail and force them to use money on legal defense instead of being used elsewhere. Between that “legal coordination” and attempts to keep him off ballots, I don’t feel it’s Trump that poses the biggest threat of election interference or threat to democracy.
Now I can’t honestly say I know what all those charges are, but based on the sheer number of them I’ve got to imagine he’ll be convicted on at least one of them. Those are all felony counts. Here I’m showing my ignorance on the legal system, but I would think that not all felonies are created equal. There are different levels of “badness” in the felony category. If he’s convicted of the most minor felony count, it can still truthfully be said that he’s been found guilty of a felony (even if he appeals and wins). If that happens, that’s the only thing you’re going to hear out of the White House, out of Biden surrogates, and from protesters between now and the election. They’ll hope a felony conviction of any sort will be enough to cause a sizable portion of voters to withhold their support from him.
This may just shape up to be a contest to see who can avoid looking the worst. Trump’s facing 90+ felonies, but Biden just got caught either lying to the American people or showing that he doesn’t quite have a solid grasp of the situation. Regarding the border bill that fell apart earlier this week, Biden has repeatedly claimed that its passage is necessary to empower him before he can solve the border crisis. The last president somehow managed to do quite a bit to secure the border, and the Democratic Senate that’s been in power since then hasn’t taken away any of the President’s powers. My guess is that Biden will tighten up the border just enough to say “look, we’ve reduced the number of people crossing into the U.S.” to try to take away Trump’s biggest weapon, and you’ll hear “felony, felony, felony” or “fascist white supremacist” about Trump.
Also like we saw in 2020, there are probably a lot of people that are going to say “I don’t like either candidate.” In an interesting turn of events, this year there’s a third-party candidate that’s benefitting quite a bit from a general dislike of the two-party system. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is picking up some steam. He comes from a more traditional Democratic platform, from before extremists took over the party. At this point he’s the most centrist candidate in the race, and he’s gaining support from people on both sides (though more of that support probably comes from Democrats). As we draw closer to the election in November he’s probably going to get more attention because a lot of what he says makes sense to people who are looking for less drama out of the White House.
What I’m about to say assumes that Kennedy gets a LOT more support between now and November, so keep that in mind as you read it. Presidential candidates win elections by gaining more than half of the nation’s 538 electoral college votes. You need 270 to win. If RFK Jr. peels off a state or two, he could conceivably prevent any candidate from reaching 270 electoral votes. In that case, the outcome of the election gets tossed over to the House of Representatives.
To reiterate, we’re talking about kind of a long-shot scenario here. If the House gets to pick the next president, it’s going to be under tremendous pressure to “do the right thing.” The “right thing,” however, is open to interpretation. Is it the candidate that got the greatest number of electoral votes? Is it the candidate that got the most popular votes? Will it come down to a party-line vote, and if so, how will that work if a few of the representatives are in the hospital or are otherwise unavailable in one of the narrowest House margins in history?
It’s still a very difficult time in our nation’s history. There’s no candidate that everyone will support. We’re stuck once again with picking the least bad option. No matter what party is in power, please pray for our president and officials in Congress. God allowed them to be there, so please pray for His hand on them, steering them toward what He wants to accomplish.
Lord, thank you for the blessings we enjoy by living in this country. I ask that You watch over our nation’s leaders, give them wisdom, and help them make God-honoring decisions. I ask in Your name, amen.
Well, political primary season is here. Despite what it may seem, I don’t really like putting political posts on the blog, but sometimes I feel like it’s important to put information out there that doesn’t get much attention.
Here’s the bottom line up front: Primaries can be more important than general elections, so it’s very important that you study up on the candidates and participate in the process. It almost seems inevitable that we’re headed for a rematch on the Presidential ballot, but that’s only the most prominent part of a very large picture. It’s also important to consider the Representatives, Senators, and local officials you’re choosing to compete later in this cycle. If a district is solid red or solid blue, the November election is more or less a foregone conclusion. The actual decision point, where voter turnout matters, is going to be the primary election that selects which candidate subsequently appears in the general election. If you’re not voting in the primary, you’re really just letting someone else determine who gets into office. This is especially important for those of you that vote Democrat.
Here’s what I mean. The Democratic Party of today in almost no way resembles what it used to be. The values are different. Now it’s nonsensical and extreme. Don’t feel like you need to completely buy into what they’re putting into their national platform, which seems like it’s a contest to see who can be the craziest. Despite what you feel like you’ve been told, it’s perfectly acceptable to be a Democrat that wants secure borders. Even though the media doesn’t want you to think this way, it’s also totally fine to be a Pro-Life Democrat. Forget what the party platform says; I know there are plenty of Democratic voters out there that think “no, boys should not be able to compete in girls’ events by saying they’re girls.” They’ve become the party of sowing division, rather than unity. How is that good for Americans? What happened to this party? The state we’re in is a result of primaries selecting extremists whose views represent only a small percentage of the actual base. You didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left you during its leftward march. It’s up to you to take back your party.
While obviously there are problems on both sides of the aisle, the problems listed above are Democrat-owned. Republicans are trying to solve them but don’t have enough bipartisan support, either at the national level or at the local level (including school boards, in some cases). I’m not saying you have to vote Republican. Don’t worry, even if we find common ground on these few issues, there’s still plenty to distinguish the two parties!
If you’re not voting in the Democratic primary for candidates that are more centrist and less extremist, you’re probably going to find yourself stuck between voting for a Republican and voting for an extremist Democrat in November. Come November, there are a lot of people that vote only on the basis of whether the candidate has a “(D)” or an “(R)” next to their name and don’t know the actual positions of the candidate, and that’s dangerous.
There’s a lot of posturing politicians have to do with regard to taking hard-line stances against the opposing party when they’re in front of the cameras, and I understand that. Members of all parties are supposed to work together, though. They don’t have to be friends, they just have to work together. Right now the political atmosphere is one of tangible hatred, and that’s not going to get us to a better place than we are right now.
Do your homework. Find the primary candidates in your district’s election that align with your values and vote for them. Take back your party, and let’s hold our elected officials accountable.
The news cycle is so short these days that this post already feels like old news. It’s been in the headlines a lot lately, but what exactly is a government shutdown? You may already know a lot of this, so if you’re pretty up to speed on the subject, feel free to skip ahead a bit.
It’s not totally realistic to compare a federal budget to a household budget, but we’ll start there. Whatever sources of income you have…that’s the money you have available to spend. If you spend more than you take in, you’re running at a deficit and you end up going into debt if you keep it up. For the average Jane or Joe, you can’t just continually spend at a deficit and go further into debt without running into some serious problems. If you die with debt, the debt still exists somewhere and gets passed along somehow. The federal government, so the argument goes, never actually has to pay off its debt because unlike a normal citizen, the government doesn’t actually die. The thinking here is that you can keep running at a deficit indefinitely.
That might be true if the debt was kept at reasonable levels or if you have years every now and then where you pay some off. Unfortunately, our government loves to SPEND money. We spend money on things that are necessary (interstate highways, a military, disaster relief, etc.), and we spend money on things whose value is more difficult to identify. We spend a lot of money on special projects that don’t benefit anyone other than constituents of specific political districts.
Our politicians, like others around the world, do what they have to do in order to remain in power. In our case, the House of Representatives is in charge of putting forth the budget every year. Representatives in Congress run for reelection every two years (meaning they’re constantly either in a campaign or are preparing for one), so they look for opportunities to throw extra money at organizations in their Congressional district in an attempt to gain favor, and to have something positive to point at in their next campaign season. We’ve got 435 Representatives, so you can imagine how, with each of them trying to throw a little extra green at their home district, this quickly adds up to numbers that extend way beyond the basic budget.
Now, here’s a curveball. Most of the drama leading up to a shutdown is intentional. Everybody (especially those in Congress) knows that there’s wasteful spending in the federal budget. You could argue that the fairest thing to do is to cut all the extra pork out of the budget, but that will also affect representatives differently. Because it’s a complicated issue, most Reps opt not to change what’s already been decided. Our Representatives in the House know that if they avoid taking meaningful action until very late in the process, it builds pressure on the entire body to approve temporary extensions (called “continuing resolutions”) that continue funding the government at the rate it’s been using. It does nothing to modify spending levels or remove any wasteful spending, it just keeps doing what it’s been doing for a little longer.
Here’s where the brouhaha from last week comes in. In the last election cycle, Republicans won back control of the House, so they obtained the right to decide how to lay out the budget (though the Democrat-controlled Senate and White House both have to sign off on any budget proposals). Republicans ran on the idea of reigning in DC’s out-of-control spending. The way they planned to do it was by passing individual bills for the obviously necessary parts of the budget (the Farm bill, funding for the Department of State, the Department of Defense, etc.), meaning that funding for a large amount of the current wasteful spending would simply disappear. If this had happened, this would have saved us a huge chunk of money as a nation.
The problem is that they couldn’t get it done in time. There was some brinksmanship, some games, some intentional pressure-building, and in the end they said “hey look, we want to continue with this ‘fund the essentials’ approach, but we ran out of time. Let’s pass a 45-day continuing resolution to give us the time we need to pass about a dozen of these bills that will fund the stuff we really need.”
Toward that end, the Republicans passed an extension of a Democrat-designed budget (including very high spending levels for the priorities laid out by Democrats) in order to try to enact an approach that requires the agreement of a bunch of people that don’t truly want it to succeed. A few of the Republican reps in the House said “we have to draw the line somewhere,” opposed the proposed bill, and then lashed out against now former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy when he framed the budget to gain support from some Democrats. This week McCarthy was voted out of his Speakership role and has announced he does not want the job again.
Now all real work in Congress (including work on those multiple bills that will fund the crucial parts of the government) stops until the House can vote in a new Speaker. Last time they had to pick a speaker, it took four days and 15 rounds of voting before McCarthy got enough votes. The clock is still ticking on those 45 days, and many of the House’s representatives are just fine with bumping up against that new November 17 deadline without a permanent budget in place, because it increases the chances they’ll pass another continuing resolution to keep funding the pet projects that are meant to make people in their home districts happy.
The sad truth is that our government consistently spends more money than it takes in, and the national debt has reached mind-boggling levels with few politicians willing to do anything about it. While all the focus has been on the debt ceiling, the national debt has ballooned to unsustainable debt-to-GDP ratios. We have so much debt at this point that, due to debt and high interest rates, we now have to use almost a fifth of our budget to service our debt. A fifth! If you had to use 20% of your income to pay off credit card bills, imagine the financial freedom and new possibilities that would open up to you if you didn’t have that expense. The government is using our tax dollars very inefficiently, and as our credit rating keeps dropping, it will affect all of us at the personal level by having a higher floor for interest rates. All the folks in DC get to shrug their shoulders and point at someone else.
So that’s what we’re dealing with. Hopefully the House will be successful in passing some clean bills this month or next so we can start paying back some of that debt.
Let’s pretend for a little bit that you and I are democratic strategists. Our chief goal is to retain control of the White House in November 2024.
Despite unprecedented legal problems for a presidential candidate, Donald Trump looks like he’s shaping up to once again be the Republican nominee. He’s so dominant in the polls, in fact, that he’s skipping debates and doesn’t appear to be suffering for it.
How confident are you that our horse can beat Trump in a rematch? This early in the election cycle, with polls tied in a statistical dead heat, we’re not confident at all. The incumbent normally has an advantage, and if the two are tied in the polls with more than a year to go before election day, it’s not looking good for Biden.
So what should we do? If you’re a democratic strategist working for Biden, your main focus is to try to fend off a primary challenge. Biden certainly has the advantage in being the nominee this coming cycle, but he has to demonstrate he’s still got enough spring in his step to handle the job. His gaffes have become more prominent in the news lately, and as ambitious potential candidates smell blood in the water, it’s going to get tougher to get the whole party to fall in line. The contenders most likely to pose a legitimate threat to his nomination need to be brought into the campaign or otherwise buy them off to prevent them from causing a problem.
What if, however, you’re not a democratic strategist working for Biden, but rather are focused on keeping the White House under democratic control with or without Biden? The media is starting to turn on Biden, his disapproval rating is at a record high, he’s dealing with a possible impeachment, and his son is nothing but a headache. It’s becoming impossible to conceal his cognitive decline. If we want to win, we’re going to have to get rid of Joe.
So what’s the play? Who do we have on the bench? Kamala’s a non-starter; she’s unelectable. Nancy Pelosi? No, if we want to attack Trump’s age, we can’t have someone older than him. Try Hillary again? I don’t think so. Governor Gavin Newsome of California? Maybe. There are a lot of unknowns there; that’s why we’re doing this Newsome/DeSantis debate soon, as a test run to see what kind of reaction he gets on the national stage. He’s from the far left wing and might be too radical to be a good presidential candidate, but we could be surprised. Biden’s so old and frail that anyone would look energetic by comparison. Let’s use this coming debate as a test to see what kind of traction he can get.
If all else fails, we could pull Michelle Obama off the bench. She had a very high popularity rating, played well on high-profile stages, and doesn’t have a whole lot of negatives. It’d be a dream come true for progressives. The big question is: can she be convinced to run? You have to be both very ambitious and a glutton for punishment if you’ve already spent eight years in the White House and want to go back for more. The White House has a way of making you claustrophobic. She’s never held an elected position before, so she’d have to be paired with a running mate that knows the system and probably one that’s viewed as a bit more centrist. Maybe we can find a democratic governor or senator that fits the bill. If that’s the play to be made, we can’t keep a lid on it for much longer; the deadline to file for the earliest primaries is early in 2024, and we can’t parachute her in until after Joe announces he’s decided not to run, and he still needs some convincing.
To win we’ve got to win over the independents. We won them last time by having a COVID death counter on the news all the time, but that only worked because we were able to make COVID the issue everyone cared about. This time it’s the economy, and that’s a tougher sell. Joe’s been out pushing Bidenomics, but he’s not getting real far with it. People just don’t believe that they’re better off in this economy than they were three or four years ago, and that’s a problem. The southern border is a similar issue; we overplayed the sympathy angle and now even democratic mayors of big cities are tapping out. We can use both of these topics to our advantage to oust Joe; we can hang the economy around his neck, “evolve our thinking” about the immigration issue, and admit that we need a different approach, and that opens the door to bring in someone new.
We also need some new lever issues. We’ve been pushing the insurrection angle pretty hard, but it’s running out of steam. People are starting to realize that even though the insurrection happened in January 2021, we waited two years to pursue any charges, and the timing looks suspicious. The Defund the Police and Black Lives Matter movements have largely stalled, and we need something fresh. Though there’s corruption in both parties, one potential angle is make a big show of rooting out corruption, giving us the moral high ground. We’ll start with Senator Bob Menendez. He’ll put up a fight, but we have enough dirt that we can lean on him hard enough to make him go. By the time he’s gone, more information about Biden’s involvement in his son’s influence-peddling scheme will be public, and we can express regret as we show Joe the door, gravely announcing that there’s no room for corruption in the Oval Office and hoping to turn some independents from Trump in the process using this show of “walking the walk.”
See? It can be kind of fun to take an alternative perspective. I don’t know how much of this is true, but it’s useful to look at things through someone else’s eyes every now and then. If Biden and Trump end up being the two nominees again, I’ve got to think Biden will lose, even with Trump’s legal problems. Joe’s fading in the polls already. That’s why there will likely be efforts in the coming weeks and months to prevent both Trump and Biden from becoming the nominee.
Whoever you vote for in your state’s primary, don’t let someone else tell you how to vote. If you’re all in for Biden or Trump, vote for him. If you desperately want someone…anyone…other than one of those two guys, cast your vote for that person. It’s your vote, not someone else’s. Let your voice be heard.
When you’re a blogger, you’re always at least a little curious about which posts really resonate with readers. Unless someone says something to you, you never really know for sure. You can get insights into things like the number of people viewing the different pages on your blog. That’s about as good a proxy as you’re going to get, because you can use that metric to see what kind of posts are more popular than others. I can’t see things like the names of people that have viewed different pages, but I can see which posts get the most traffic.
It turns out that the post I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the odd politics of our nation (it’s easier for a minor to get a sex change than it is for them to get a tattoo, for example) generated significantly more hits than normal. While I fully intend for this blog’s main purpose to remain focused on pushing Christ-followers to use their lives as a living sacrifice and step into the role God’s designed for them, sometimes I also need to take my own advice and do what I’m good at, even if it’s not directly God-honoring.
Today I’d like to have another look at American politics, starting out with some of the basics and hopefully help translate a little of that into where we are today.
I try to stay away from party names like “Democrat” or “Republican,” and instead use the terms “liberal” and “conservative.” The reason is partly because people don’t often fit cleanly into one camp or the other and people don’t react objectively to labels, but mainly it’s because each party’s views can be so wide-ranging that you could squeeze multiple ideologies into each party. You’ll hear me refer to the political left (liberals/Democrats generally, but Socialists and Communists if you go further and further left) and political right (conservatives/Republicans here, but dictators if you go further right). Both sides seek prosperity or financial security, but they take very different approaches to get there.
Please understand that these are broad generalizations. Of course you can find exceptions to the things I say here, but by and large, these principles hold true. Let’s start with an abridged look at the two groups.
Left: Their view is that the people work for the government, which provides stability, services, financial safety nets, etc. for its citizens (and non-citizens, in our case). Social issues are generally the most important things our country has to figure out. Quality of life is a good thing, but the government doesn’t like when there are large disparities between the “haves” and the “have nots,” so the “haves” should pay higher and higher tax percentages the more money they make. The government will take care of you from cradle to grave in return for your loyalty in paying high taxes. Life is hard, people have extenuating circumstances; they can’t always make the most of their opportunities and they should look to the government as the solution to their problems.
Right: In this group’s view, the government works for the people, providing basic national services (federal highways, FAA and FCC rules, a strong military), but not taking more taxes than necessary and allowing local-level politics to sort out the details. The law of supply and demand plays a big part in our economy. If people are willing to pay for something, someone will come up with a better or cheaper way to provide it. Individual innovators and service providers in the private sector drive the economy and wealth creation, and the government provides only basic guidelines to make sure those efforts don’t go off the rails (as an example, think about the reasonable rules/precautions the government should pass regarding artificial intelligence right now). Ideally there should be plentiful job opportunities for everyone, and those that work hard are encouraged to go as far as their potential and drive enable them to go.
If you’re a conservative, you kind of have the political deck stacked against you. People in the two camps have very different outlooks, as you might expect. The “best minds” of left-leaning thinkers end up in government. The “best minds” of right-leaning thinkers end up in the private sector. Who, then, on the right, ends up in government? There are some good ones, sure, but often the ones that are really good decide that they can make a more lucrative living doing something other than government service, and they end up leaving public office. I wouldn’t go so far as to say our government’s Democrats are the Varsity team and Republicans are the Junior Varsity team, but it’s tough to come up with a better analogy. As a result, the country has steadily marched left, even though we’re a mostly center-right nation. Even beyond Senators and Congressional Representatives, the bench is much deeper for liberals. When liberals can’t get their legislative agenda passed, faceless regulators and unelected officials use different avenues to advance the goals of hard-left politicians. Businesses that are just trying to make a profit are impacted when their bottom line is affected by regulations that get too complicated to understand. They have to pay for the services of lawyers and compliance officers to make sure they’re doing everything legally, rather than spending that money on enhancing the quality of their product or otherwise investing in their business. (Trump cleared a lot of regulations and the economy leapt forward. Biden reinstituted a lot of them and that’s part of the reason our economic recovery is so slow. Some regulations were good ideas, others were not, but the more regulations you have, the harder it is to run a business.)
Conservatives often have the viewpoint that they shouldn’t interfere in other peoples’ lives because that’s not what they’d want to happen to them. Legislatively, liberals tend to benefit from that outlook because they don’t have the same qualms and conservatives don’t normally fight back until it’s too late. Conservatives figure that as long as politicians in Washington don’t do anything too crazy, it’ll all be fine in the end. Well, then those politicians go and do things conservatives aren’t comfortable with. That gets the conservatives to vote in the next election or two, but eventually they go back to their complacency and the cycle starts again. The result is that the country’s politics have steadily shifted leftward over the last hundred years (examples: Social Security and the New Deal, Medicare and Medicaid, the mandatory health insurance of the Affordable Care Act, today’s practice of using well-qualified mortgage applicants to pay extra fees to help support riskier borrowers, and the functional removal of America’s southern border). The political left “takes new ground” while the best that conservatives hope for is “stopping the liberal agenda.” Conservatives don’t usually take new ground. (Or if they do, it causes face-melting rage fests and riots among the left.)
Our country’s government was set up to have multiple political parties, so I wouldn’t want to see just one be completely dominant, even if it’s the one I tend to side with. It’s a little unfair to refer to the current Democratic Party as the actual Democratic Party. Over the last 20 years or so, the party has shifted far left very quickly, often to the extreme left. The Democratic platform has changed and now embraces extremism in almost every case. (Everyday middle-class Democrats who agree on almost all the Party’s main issues but disagree on one thing, like the issue of abortion, are shouted down and all but kicked out of the Party if they push their views, it seems.) People that have voted Democrat for decades out of principle maybe went along with this leftward migration, but are finding that their party traveled further left than they really agree with. Their options are to not vote, to vote Republican (which some of them will never do just on principle), or to vote for a third party. I’d argue that they didn’t leave the Democratic Party, but that the Democratic Party instead left them. They should get involved earlier, in the primaries, to try to reclaim their party and move it back toward the center, where the two sides can actually get some things done by working together.
There’s so much more to cover, but this is already getting longer than normal. No matter what side you’re on politically, please pray for our nation, that it would turn from evil and toward the Lord. Pray for revival in this land and for God to be glorified.
There’s a whole lot more, but I don’t know if you’d be interested to hear it. Want additional political posts? Want me to stay away from future political posts? Let me know. Leave a comment or use the “contact us” option to share your thoughts.
I can’t speak much for other parts of the world, but in the United States of America, turning 18 is kind of a big deal.
This is the age when you transition from being a minor to being an adult. Before turning 18, you’re still considered too young to have a firm understanding (or insufficient life experience) to be grounded enough to make good decisions.
I mean, think about it. There are some exceptions, but for the most part you can’t do these things before turning 18:
Get a tattoo or body piercing
Vote
Rent an apartment or buy a house
Join the military
Get married
The intent behind making it mandatory for a minor to turn 18 before being able to make the decision to embark on any of these things is because they all carry a certain weight or have long-lasting consequences. Many of these, after all, are life-altering decisions.
So you’ll understand if I express my disapproval that in many parts of the U.S., it’s easier for an 11-year-old to obtain gender reassignment surgery than it is to get a tattoo. (No, I’m not advocating that we lower the minimum tattoo age.) It is disturbingly easy to empower children to set off on a journey of permanent change without them having a firm grasp of the ramifications they’re agreeing to live with. Even if you’re a pro-trans activist, I think you’d have to agree with me on some level up to this point of the posting.
Let’s call a spade a spade here: we’re talking about mutilating children’s natural body parts and acting like it’s somehow archaic if we do not give them the opportunity to alter the course of their natural lives. I’m sorry, but if you can’t even get tattoos at that age, the government shouldn’t be allowing people under 18 to pursue such permanent reassignment surgeries.
Switching gears slightly, I have to ponder…given the prevalence of this issue in the national spotlight today, one would think there’s a tremendous amount of pent-up demand among minors. I’m not ready to hit the “I Believe” button on that issue, but for the sake of argument, let’s suppose it’s true for a moment. As responsible adults, it’s up to people on both sides of the aisle to say “hey look, I recognize there’s a lot of demand for this, but pursuing this course of action is a major decision, so we’re going to make you put it on hold until you’re legally an adult.” Why isn’t that an easy piece of legislation to get passed?
I don’t really believe there IS a lot of demand for this type of thing among kids. That begs another question. If that’s true and there’s no major demand, why such a big push for it? I mean, if politicians are making something out of nothing, what’s the political goal of such a thing?
I guess I’d have to pull in a few other things to round out the picture. “Protecting Women’s rights” does not include fairness for female athletes, and it seems that rather than create a separate category or class of athlete, the party line is that it’s in competition’s best interest to allow biological males (or those born biological males) to compete in Women’s sports. That’s just one additional item. Let’s open the aperture a little more.
It’s pretty scary how much traction the “Defund the Police” movement got within the past few years. I wouldn’t say the tide has completely receded, but I think it’s reached its high-water mark by now. The hypocrisy of the people with the loudest voices calling for such a defunding (hiring personal security details or building walls around their homes) helps illustrate that maybe this wasn’t such a good idea. Kicking it up a notch though, is the District Attorney from Manhattan who announced recently he would no longer prosecute theft with the intent of establishing racial equity. (Ironically, this viewpoint justifies the use of racism to level the playing field.) What good can the police do if they catch someone robbing a home if that person is released from custody within hours?
Hang with me a little longer. Did you hear about this new mortgage situation? People with high credit scores, the ones that have made good decisions (you know, like “live within your means” or “pay your bills on time”) are now going to be required to pay extra fees to offset the risk associated with granting large loans to people with low credit scores. While I agree that homeownership creates a pathway to wealth, this is not the way to do it. This is essentially Communism by another name. “Everyone else deserves what you’ve worked hard for.”
Finally, the move from equality to equity. It doesn’t sound much different, does it? It’s only a change of two letters. It’s a gargantuan difference, though. I’m all for equality. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had it right. The person best suited for the job should get the job, whatever their background. Equity, however, means that the same outcome is desired across the board, so each person should be given whatever is necessary to empower them to achieve that result. I’m an out-of-shape white dude that’s over 40 years old. If I want to play in the NBA, equity says I should be given whatever it takes to ensure my success in that league. In games, there should be trampolines only I can use. Performance-enhancing drugs, officiating that goes in my favor, special rules…all should be on the table if we want equity.
To bring this to a close, it seems to me that all these viewpoints, with as little logical sense as they make, actually make quite a bit of political sense in one respect. If your goal is to tear down the existing system, these things will help you get there.
Now everybody knows that a nation of more than 330 million people can’t just burn down its government and let chaos reign. If you’re trying to topple the government that’s already there, you surely intend to replace it with something. And that, my friends, is the problem. In societies overrun with discontent and anger at those perceived to be hoarding resources, Communism has a very real chance at taking hold. Communism is second-to-none when it comes to political systems that cause large amounts of human suffering.
Whatever its faults, Capitalism rewards those that work hard. If there’s an inequality in the system (which, I will concede, there often is), the solution is to create more opportunities (as opposed to handouts) for those getting the short end of the stick, not punishing those flourishing.
If you’re roughly 45 years old or more, you remember the fall of the Berlin Wall and the crumbling of Soviet Communism. You remember the harsh realities behind the Iron Curtain. Very little freedom. Very little food. God is abolished and replaced with the State and state-run religion. This is where we’re headed if the present culture of participation trophies and “I’m too stressed to work five days a week” prevails. Do not accept the notion of making the illogical acceptable. Get involved in local politics. Attend school board meetings. There are more of you than you might think, but most of them are thinking someone else will show up at the meetings.
“When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” – Edmund Burke