Skip to main content

What if Donald Trump were a Democrat

I closed my last post by asking: at what point should our moral qualms about a politician's character outweigh our other reasons for lending them our support?   Given the current environment, it's very hard to entertain this question as a matter of principle, without getting dragged down in partisan politics.  To assist us in this endeavor, let's imagine, for just a moment, that Donald Trump is President ... and a Democrat. 

Imagine that Donald Trump, the Democrat, defeated an unpopular Republican in the 2016 presidential election - for convenience, let's say Newt Gingrich.  Imagine that President Trump (D) has a Congress controlled by Democrats, and is attempting to pursue an almost entirely blue political platform. Imagine he is nominating liberals to the Supreme Court, pursuing single-payer healthcare legislation, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, and so on. Imagine, in short, that his Presidency seems to hold at least some slight promise of fulfilling a number of long-cherished Democratic dreams.  

As you exercise your imagination, however, imagine that he is still Donald Trump - a liar, a swindler, a narcissist, a blowhard. Imagine that he has not released his tax returns, and there is no way of knowing how his business interests are shaping his conduct as President.  Imagine that he has placed family members in key positions in the White House, positions with no external accountability.  Imagine that he persistently undermines his own staff, dismays even those who are loyal to him, shows greater respect to Vladimir Putin than he does to our key allies around the world. Imagine that he cares and knows almost nothing about policies and governance.  Imagine that when the legislative going gets tough in Congress, he is quick to shirk responsibility, and pin blame on other Democrats.

This may seem preposterous, but remember, Donald Trump long considered running for President with a "D" beside his name. He long  supported single-payer healthcare, long indicated his willingness to support LGBT rights, and long embraced any number of positions which he has now abandoned. A hollow man, a man with no core principles, a man committed primarily to his own self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment, he could have developed a Democratic shtick, I'm sure. A talented salesman, he might have gone far with it.

So now, ask yourself again:at what point would your moral qualms about Donald Trump the Democrat cause you to withdraw your political support?  I've been impressed by the many Republicans who refused to support Donald Trump, and at times I've wondered if I would have the moral courage to do the same, had I been in their shoes. Would you? On what moral ground would you make this decision, and where would you draw the line?

UP NEXT: Why Morality Matters


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE HUBRIS OF INCLUSION: Thoughts on the Future of the United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church was born in a specific time and place, in the mid-twentieth century in the United States of America. Protestant denominations were ascendant, and with them a brand of "ecumenism" that would only decades later be recognized by those who championed it as culturally bound to the white "mainline." Mergers were all the buzz, including the one that created the UMC in 1968, and Methodists embraced their new denomination as partial fulfillment of a dream of "Christian unity." As the historian Robert Handy noted in his wonderful little 1971 book,  A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities , leaders of the new denomination thought of it as "a kind of unofficial national church." Because they sat at the midpoint of mainline American Protestantism in so many respects -- ecclesial, theological, liturgical -- it was easy for them to assume that as all churches became one, pretty much everyone else would eventua...
3 comments
Read more

Methodism's Many Pasts and Futures

From the time the brothers John and Charles Wesley first convened a "holy club" of friends at Oxford University in 1729, Methodists have declared theirs a pursuit of “holiness” or “Christian perfection.”  For early Methodists, the pursuit of Christian perfection led inevitably to disagreements about what it meant to live a holy life.   As early as  1741 the Wesleys distanced themselves from their closest collaborator, George Whitefield, over his Calvinist teachings.  And while Wesley proclaimed himself to possess "a catholic spirit," his practices - not least, his own refusal to conform to the conventions of Anglican parish ministry - were widely perceived by his contemporaries to be divisive or even "schismatic." Methodism on the other side of the Atlantic retained this same spirit, which should come as little surprise since it was born in an act of separation - in 1784,  Wesley consecrated Thomas Coke as Superintendent, setting in motion the cre...
2 comments
Read more

On the 40th Anniversary of Friendship Park

Imagine the First Lady of the United States punching a hole in the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.   Imagine her publicly lamenting that there was a border fence at all. In fact this scenario doesn’t need to be imagined … because it happened forty years ago right here in San Diego County.   The date was August 18, 1971 and the location was “Friendship Park,” the small cement plaza on the U.S.-Mexico border, at the southwest-most corner of the continental United States. The First Lady was Pat Nixon, who had been a prominent champion of our state’s public parks when her husband Richard Nixon was Governor of California, before being elected President of the United States.    She came to Friendship Park to inaugurate the surrounding area as California’s Border Field State Park.    After planting a tree as part of the inauguration ceremony, Mrs. Nixon approached the large stone monument which sits at the heart of Friendship Park.   The monument commemo...
Post a Comment
Read more