Beelzebub knows his own
Yes, I really do want Trump to win, and this is why

Let me begin by saying that I do not see Trump in the way I saw Palin, as someone of substance and virtue. There are many things which a Christian might see as less than ideal with Trump, which are too familiar to need listing here. However, I do wonder whether those things which seem such strong flaws, such as his narcissism, are in fact essential characteristics that shield him from the immense assaults that he is facing – that, in other words, if there was to be a presidential candidate who might succeed in taking on the entrenched principalities and powers that have so disfigured our world, it could only be someone like Trump.

I rush ahead of myself.

Clinton is the candidate of the establishment. That establishment encompasses both sides of the standard Rep/Dem divide. As an establishment candidate, Clinton embodies the policies that have become embedded in the ‘deep state’ since the collapse of the cold war, and would continue to implement them were she to assume office. These include: a reckless and ill-considered foreign policy that has caused havoc across the Middle East and in the Ukraine; protection for financial vested interests and ‘too big to fail’ banks like Goldman Sachs; and more power and protection for the surveillance state and torture.

Broadly speaking, if you believe that, in the light of the situation in Syria and elsewhere; the financial collapse; and the revelations about the NSA from Snowden et al; that the United States is a beacon of virtue lifting up the world towards the light, then Clinton is undoubtedly the best candidate. If, however, you believe that vested interests have taken charge of the United States and have led it away from its destiny, that have turned it into an oppressive Empire, and that it needs to reformed and returned to its foundational values – then, perhaps, there might be a question as to Clinton’s suitability for leadership.

Those questions have greater purchase when considering Clinton’s own character and fitness for office. The director of the FBI has assessed her as being extremely careless with state secrets, and quite clearly, were she not a presidential candidate, she would be in the midst of a prosecution and facing jail for serious breaches of security. Her actions throughout the Benghazi story are deeply disturbing for anyone who takes the idea of public service seriously. There is evidence that she has abused her office for the purposes of personal enrichment through the Clinton Foundation. There are serious questions about her personal integrity and the way in which she will mouth feminist platitudes whilst having protected her husband from all questions of sexual assault. In addition to these, there are serious questions about her health and her possible alcoholism.

Of course, these may all be considered simply as standard attributes of those who have sought and attained high office in the United States, and therefore unremarkable. I am not in a position to comment authoritatively on that.

However, it is possible to see behind Clinton the shape of the principalities and powers that are opposed to the Kingdom of God, against which all Christians are called to stand. That is, if we are to take our Scriptures seriously, Christians are baptised into a situation of spiritual warfare, where that spiritual struggle is necessarily political – and the political struggle is necessarily spiritual. To separate out the two is ultimately to deny the incarnation, and anti-Christian.

What Christians refer to as the ‘principalities and powers’ are the deep structural forces that keep human beings in subjection and oppression; that pursue and worship the exercise of power, eternally seeking to extend it; and which always seek to suppress dissent and the voices of the prophets. These are the forces of injustice which choose to crucify those that oppose them.

In today’s world, those forces can most aptly be seen at work in the ‘deep state’ of the United States. I say most aptly simply because they are most clear there – I do not wish to say that the United States is uniquely prone to wickedness. If pushed, I would rather say the opposite, that the constitution of the United States, the idea of a ‘proposition nation’ to which all are welcome – this seems to be a step forward in the history of humanity, an outgrowth of the gospel itself. My concern is that the United States has forgotten itself, and become captured. (For more on this, see here.)

This deep state would include what Eisenhower christened as the military-industrial complex, but also the mainstream media, which operates as a directed chorus to generate assent for what the deep state chooses to do. More broadly I would include within the principalities and powers all the habits of mind and speech that fall under the heading of political correctness, the ways in which we censor ourselves for fear of being excluded. It is such a fear which is the fuel that allows the principalities and powers to maintain their power within the world, subject only to the directions of the prince of this world.

That is the broad context in which I understand this election. That for the first time there is a candidate against whom all of the established principalities and powers are united. This should, at the very least, cause Christians to give sustained attention to that candidate and wonder whether the Lord is doing something particular here.

This does not mean that the person struggling against the principalities is a saint, let alone one without sin. The notion that a political candidate might be such is a reflection of both spiritual and political immaturity, and the failure to recognise Jesus as Lord. It can mean that we are called to pay close attention, and remember that God is able to use frail and weak human nature to accomplish something miraculous.

After all, what is at stake in this election? What is most at stake for the world?

In my eyes, the most important issue relates to Syria – the civilisational clash with ISIS, and the way in which great power relations are at stake. If this is handled wrongly – that is, if the United States continues to behave in the way that it has been doing – then what might have been an opportunity for all the civilised nations of the world to unite against barbarism will instead become a catastrophic war between great powers.

In the second presidential debate this issue was raised, and the differences between the candidates were very clear. One candidate spoke about ISIS as the most important enemy, and the need for cordial relations with Russia. The other spoke about Russia as being a greater threat than ISIS. One candidate sees the issue clearly and neutrally. The other sees through the lenses manufactured by the deep state and would act accordingly.

Those latter actions, in my view, would be utterly devastating to the world, and lead to immense misery and suffering. What most disturbs me about almost all coverage and analysis of this election is that these weighty matters are ignored in favour of the equivalent of celebrity culture and gossip.

I believe that all Christians have a duty to vote, and to vote in such a way that the Kingdom of God is brought forward. Those forces which are in eternal opposition to the Kingdom are now united against Donald Trump. The principalities and powers do not wish you to pay attention to the serious matters of life and death, of war and peace. They would far rather that people were concerned about lewd behaviour, potential rudeness, arrogance and egotism, vulgarity and bad taste. I do not see how any spiritually serious Christian could consider voting in favour of the principalities and powers. That is why I want Trump to win.

Or, to put it all into one single image: Beelzebub knows his own.


3 thoughts on “Beelzebub knows his own
Yes, I really do want Trump to win, and this is why

  1. I really don’t know where to start with this! Acts 26:24 seems very apposite to me in this instance(!). I believe that you overstate your case and it is close to the ‘Yes Prime Minister’ (?) line – ‘all dogs have 4 legs, my cat has 4 legs,; therefore my cat is a dog’.

    I will go so far as to agree with you that Clinton is from the Establishment and her candidature has not filled me with enthusiasm. However, your demolition of her perhaps overstates the case.

    Likewise the way that you vilify ‘political correctness’ – I think there is a strong ‘straw man’ argument here.

    And as for Trump… I haven’t heard someone so intelligent put such a case for him without their tongue being firmly in their cheek. I don’t even know where to begin: your portrait verges on a hagiography.

    I cannot see him in any way as a Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), although I guess God can use anyone. I do not see any coherence in his policies apart from taking random potshots at anyone who is not like him, I feel he has the psychological profile of an abuser, he uses ‘race’ in a way that is likely to stir up hate (and maybe that is ‘pc’- trouble is I hear so many rich white males equate ‘pc’ with not victimising, abusing anyone like them) etc etc. That would be without his own grandiose claims about himself etc. I do not expect a candidate for this role to be entirely above reproach, but having said that I think he falls beyond any measure of suitability for the role.

    He is part of the Establishment and yet paints himself as anti establishment (although that was a conceit that Farage pulled off).

    To be honest, this election is a very poor advert for democracy and the 2 party system. I think Clinton will win, but I think even more people will feel themselves disenfranchised from an electoral system that feels akin to a dictatorship.

  2. Hi Graham – I like Paul’s reply! I don’t think I am hagiographic about Trump, which is why I began in the way I did, and why I didn’t say much specifically about him except negatively. I do think he has some virtues – more than Clinton – but for sure, against many other candidates he would fall very short. I do wonder about the narcissism though – that someone who (might) enable a clean break going forward might just have to have strange personality traits in order to survive the onslaught from the principalities and powers. Can you give me some examples of his use of ‘race’ in the way you are describing?

  3. With race- ‘Mexicans’ stands out. His comments and the way that they are phrased are likely to incite hatred against them. Ditto ‘Muslims’- whilst it can be argued that this is merely a religious dislike, I think in the context it could well promote racial stereotyping. Of course one could argue that is not what is meant; it is merely ‘locker room talk’…

    I am still not sure what he offers- bar room braggadocio is not coherent opposition.
    I am not endorsing Clinton. I think I would vote for her, but without enthusiasm (for some of the things you cite). I would have been more enthusiastic about Sanders.

Comments are closed.