Sunday, September 15, 2024

Trump: A buyer’s guide

In the weeks since I wrote on the dilemma that Donald Trump has put social conservatives in, the problem has only become far more pronounced.  Trump has stated that a second Trump administration “will be great for women and their reproductive rights.”  His running mate J. D. Vance has said that if a national abortion ban were passed by Congress, Trump would veto it.  Though claiming to support pro-life measures at the state level, Trump says that in Florida, abortion should be legal even past the first six weeks of pregnancy.  And he has said that in a second Trump administration, the government would either pay for, or require insurance companies to pay for, all costs associated with IVF treatment – even though IVF treatments kill more embryos every year than abortion does, so that an IVF mandate would be even worse than Obama’s notorious contraception mandate.  Trump has also come out in support of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.

Meanwhile, new Trump advisor Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. informs us that Trump has made it clear to him that he won’t be influenced by “right-wing assholes” anymore and will be “listening to more than just that kind of narrow right-wing band that people are terrified of” so that “people are going to see a very different President Trump than they did during the first term.”  He says that he and his fellow former Democrat (and still liberal) Tulsi Gabbard are “going to be on [Trump’s] transition committee picking the people who are going to govern.”  Kennedy, it will be recalled, recently opined that abortion should be legal even at “full-term,” and allowed for some vague restrictions only after the outcry his initial remarks generated.

These developments massively reinforce the already ample evidence adduced in my previous article that Trump is transforming the GOP into a second pro-choice and socially liberal party.  To be sure, it remains true that Kamala Harris, her running mate Tim Walz, and the Democrats in general are even worse on these issues.  Hence it goes without saying that no social conservative can justify voting for her.  Nor have I changed my mind about the conclusion I drew in the previous article – that the least bad outcome would be Trump defeating Harris, albeit narrowly enough that it is palpable to the GOP that it cannot in the future take social conservatives for granted.

But “least bad” does not entail “not bad.”  And it is imperative for social conservatives to face the hard truth that Trump is, from now on, bound to be very bad for the pro-life cause and for social conservatism more generally, even if not quite as bad as Harris.  Certainly it would be delusional to suppose that the role he played in overturning Roe v. Wade, and the conservative and Christian rhetoric he occasionally deploys, give any good reason to judge otherwise.  Trump is not someone with socially conservative inclinations who is temporarily moving left for short-term political gain.  Rather, he has always been someone of socially liberal inclinations who temporarily moved right for short-term political gain, but has now judged that this is no longer a viable position and is reverting to type.  If the evidence of his words and actions over the last couple of years left any doubt about this, his record prior to seeking the GOP nomination eight years ago should remove that doubt.  Many conservatives and Christians have convinced themselves that Trump is, however imperfect, an instrument by which our decline might be reversed, or at least paused.  In reality, his rise is a symptom of our decline and has accelerated it, even if in a different manner than that by which the Left has accelerated it.

Trump famously prides himself on his skill at “the art of the deal.”  Before socially conservative voters close the deal with him one last time, they should be clear-eyed about what they are actually getting, as opposed to what they would like to get or what Trump would like them to think they are getting.  What follows is a buyer’s guide.

Trump’s state of nature

Trump first ran for president in 2000, competing with Pat Buchanan for the nomination of the Reform Party.  He made a point of contrasting himself with the famously conservative Buchanan on social issues.  In his campaign book The America We Deserve, Trump condemned Buchanan for “intolerance” toward homosexuals.  While he wrote that he opposed partial-birth abortion, he otherwise characterized himself as “pro-choice” and said “I support a woman’s right to choose.”  These remarks followed upon comments made during an interview the previous year, to the effect that we was “very pro-choice” and that gays serving in the military (then a major issue) “would not disturb me.”  He emphasized, in the same interview, that his views were the sort to be expected of someone who has “lived in New York City and Manhattan all [his] life.”  In short, he was a typical social liberal, not the most extreme sort but certainly not conservative.  It was only when he considered seeking the Republican nomination in 2012 that he first claimed that he had become pro-life. 

Now, when you want to know what a politician really thinks, it is especially useful to consider what he has said when not seeking office, and when he is freely offering his considered opinion rather than being asked to formulate, on the spot, a position on some controversial issue of the moment.  Especially useful in this connection are Trump’s 1990 interview in Playboy, and his 2007 book Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life, which, though a crass self-help volume, also contains autobiographical elements and an expression of Trump’s personal life philosophy.  Sources like these give a good idea of how he sees the world, and the picture is remarkably consistent over time.

Interestingly, in the 1990 interview, Trump said he had no opinion on abortion.  But he did have much to say about matters such as trade, foreign policy, crime, and “the working man,” and his opinions then were very much like the opinions he has now.  This tends to confirm what any objective observer would have guessed from the history of Trump’s political career, which is that the latter issues (rather than “social issues” such as abortion) are the ones he really cares about.

But what is most important about the interview and the book is what they reveal about Trump’s fundamental values, what he takes life to be about.  In the interview, he says that it is not really money or material things that drive him.  This leads to the following exchange:

Interviewer: Then what does all this – the yacht, the bronze tower, the casinos – really mean to you?

Trump: Props for the show.

Interviewer: And what is the show?

Trump: The show is “Trump” and it is sold-out performances everywhere.  I've had fun doing it and will continue to have fun, and I think most people enjoy it.

Later on in the interview the theme is revisited:

Interviewer: How large a role does pure ego play in your deal making and enjoyment of publicity?

Trump: Every successful person has a very large ego.

Interviewer: Every successful person?  Mother Teresa?  Jesus Christ?

Trump: Far greater egos than you will ever understand.

Interviewer: And the Pope?

Trump: Absolutely.  Nothing wrong with ego.  People need ego, whole nations need ego. I think our country needs more ego, because it is being ripped off so badly by our so-called allies.

Later still, the interview addresses the question of the ultimate point of this ego satisfaction:

Interviewer: In the deep of the night, after the reporters all leave your conferences, are you ever satisfied with what you've accomplished?

Trump: I'm too superstitious to be satisfied.  I don't dwell on the past.  People who do that go right down the tubes.  I'm never self-satisfied.  Life is what you do while you're waiting to die.  You know, it is all a rather sad situation.

Interviewer: Life?  Or death?

Trump: Both.  We're here and we live our sixty, seventy or eighty years and we're gone.  You win, you win, and in the end, it doesn't mean a hell of a lot.  But it is something to do – to keep you interested.

Now, it is important to point out – both in the interests of fairness to Trump, and to allow his critics to see that he is a more complex man than many of them give him credit for – that in the interview and the book he also emphasizes the importance of charitable giving.  I think he is sincere about this, and it is a serious mistake to think that Trump is fundamentally motivated by greed.  He has grave flaws, but that is not one of them.

What Trump is motivated by, as both the interview and indeed his entire public life make manifest, is egotism, and the imperative to “win.”  The depressing and indeed ugly consequences of this view of life are spelled out in Think Big and Kick Ass.  There he divides the world into “winners” and “losers,” with the aim of the book being to show how to secure a place in the first category (p. 15).  This is not a goal that can ever be realized once and for all, but requires a constant pursuit, so that “you can never rest, no matter how good things are going” (p. 30).  And it requires egotism of the kind he evinced in the interview.  “Having a big ego is a good thing,” he writes (p. 279), advising that “everything you do in life, do with attitude” (p. 269) and “[do] not give a crap” what others think about it (p. 271).  Practicing what he preaches, he tells us that “I’m really smart” (p. 148) and “I always think of myself as the best-looking guy” (p. 269) – though, comically, he pretends that humility too is somehow among his virtues, writing that “I am not a conceited person and I do not like to have conceited people around me” (p. 156).

In this “game of life,” says Trump, “money is how you score” (p. 43).  But it isn’t money in itself that gives satisfaction.  Rather, Trump says, it is the “deals” one makes in the course of pursuing success that does so (p. 41).  Quoting the opening lines of his famous first book The Art of the Deal, he writes:

I don’t do it for the money.  I’ve got enough, much more than I’ll ever need.  I do it to do it.  Deals are my art form.  Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write beautiful poetry.  I like making deals, preferably big deals.  That’s how I get my kicks.

What is the big deal about “deals”?  Trump makes it clear that it is the domination of the other person involved that gives deals their appeal.  In Think Big and Kick Ass, he writes:

I love to make the big score and to make the big deal.  I love to crush the other side and take the benefits.  Why?  Because there is nothing greater.  For me it is even better than sex, and I love sex.  But when you hit, when the deals are going your way, it is the greatest feeling!  You hear lots of people say that a great deal is when both sides win.  That is a bunch of crap.  In a great deal you win – not the other side.  You crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself. (p. 48)

On the matter of sex, Trump boasts of the many women he has “been able to date (screw)” because of his bold attitude (p. 270), and is frank that this includes “married” women (p. 271).  But the reader suspects that what Trump would do with other men’s wives he likely would not tolerate from his own. “Being in a marriage,” he says, is a “business” (p. 21), and as with every other business arrangement, one must make sure that one’s own interests are protected.  He puts so much emphasis on this that he devotes an entire chapter to the importance of always getting a prenuptial agreement whenever one marries (as he has three times).

“I value loyalty above everything else,” Trump tells us (p. 160).  And evidently, that is precisely because he thinks it is not the normal course of things:

The world is a vicious, brutal place.  It’s a place where people are looking to kill you, if not physically, then mentally.  In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill.  People are looking to put you down, especially if you are on top… You have to know how to defend yourself.  People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport.  Even your friends are out to get you! (p. 139)

Crucial to protecting your interests, Trump emphasizes, is revenge.  This is a major theme of Think Big and Kick Ass, not only repeated several times but elaborated upon in an entire chapter of its own.  “I love getting even… Always get even.  Go after people that go after you” (p. 29).  “When somebody screws you, screw them back in spades” (p. 183).  “If you don’t get even, you are just a schmuck!  I really mean it, too” (p. 190).  “You need to screw them back fifteen times harder” (p. 194).  And so on.  He relates the case of a former employee who failed to help him when he needed it, but later faced hard times of her own, losing her business, her home, and her husband.  This, he says, made him “really happy,” and “now I go out of my way to make her life miserable” (p. 180).  He also tells us about an athlete friend of his who had been betrayed by his manager but declined to take Trump’s advice to get revenge.  Trump broke off the friendship over this, refusing to associate any further with a “loser,” “schmuck,” and “jerk” who would refuse to get even (p. 192).

Now, I submit that the view of human life all of this reflects is like nothing so much as Hobbes’s state of nature.  For Hobbes, human beings in their natural condition are nothing more than self-interested bundles of appetites, each of whom pursues his own desire-satisfaction and glory in a way that is bound to be at odds with others’ pursuit of their own desire-satisfaction and glory.  This inevitably makes social life nasty and dangerous, and the only remedy is to agree by “contract” to follow rules that are in each party’s self-interest, and only insofar as they are in one’s self-interest.  There is, for Hobbes, nothing in our nature that can provide any higher motivation, nor can we have knowledge of an afterlife or of any religious doctrine that might afford us any higher motivation.

This view of human life is fundamentally at odds both with the tradition of moral and political philosophy deriving from Plato and Aristotle, and with Christian doctrine.  But again, Trump’s vision is disturbingly reminiscent of it.  His egotism evokes the Hobbesian agent selfishly seeking his own glory and desire-satisfaction; his emphasis on demanding loyalty, while simultaneously getting the better of others and taking revenge on enemies as the key to navigating a hostile social world, calls to mind the relationship between human beings in a Hobbesian state of nature; and his obsession with “deals” echoes the Hobbesian view that contract alone can yield anything close to beneficial social relationships.  And Trump’s vision of life, like Hobbes’s, is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.  Certainly it is hard to think of an ethos that more manifestly contradicts Christ’s Sermon on the Mount than Trump’s celebration of egotism and revenge (not to mention adultery and divorce). 

The Trumpification of conservatism

Naturally, one can push such an analysis only so far.  No actual human being is strictly reducible to a Hobbesian agent, because Hobbes’s conception of human nature is simply wrong (certainly from the point of view of the natural law and Christian anthropology I would defend).  Nor is Trump without his virtues.  Again, I believe his charitable impulses are sincere, reflecting something like what Aristotle would call the virtue of liberality.  I think his patriotism is sincere, as is his love for his family, all of which reflects the virtue of piety.  I think his concern for working people is sincere, and reflects something like the virtue of magnanimity.  His determination in the face of setbacks is impressive, and reflects a kind of courage.  And he can be very funny, which is no small thing in a leader.

The trouble is that Trump’s egotism and obsessive desire to “win” seem more fundamental to his character than these virtues, and can distort or even overwhelm them – so much so that he at least approximates a Hobbesian agent.  And this accounts for the words and actions that have made him such a controversial figure.

To be sure, there is an enormous amount of nonsense said and written about Trump.  It is true that too many of his admirers are unwilling to listen to any criticism of him, but it is also true that many of his critics are too willing to believe any criticism of him.  And overreaction to this excessive hostility to him is a major reason why the devotion of his admirers is often excessive. 

To note some examples of the nonsense in question, the constantly repeated claim that Trump said after the Charlottesville incident that there are “very fine people” among neo-Nazis and white supremacists is a myth.  The truth is that he explicitly said that he was not talking about such people, who, he agreed, should be “condemned.”  Trump’s remark about a “bloodbath” if he loses the 2024 election was not (contrary to what is often asserted) a prediction of political violence, but rather about dire effects on the auto industry.  Despite what is often alleged, Trump never advised people to inject bleach as a treatment for Covid.  Some of the recent prosecutions of Trump are indeed legally flimsy and manifestly politically motivated.  And so on.

It is also quite preposterous to characterize Trump as a “fascist.”  He is nothing as ideological as that.  To be sure, what he wanted Mike Pence to do on January 6, 2021 would have been a very grave offense against the rule of law, as my friend and sometimes co-author Joseph Bessette showed in a Claremont Review of Books essay.  That alone should have prevented Republicans from ever again nominating him for president.  But there is no reason whatsoever to attribute it to a fascist agenda.  It reflects instead the pique of a man for whom the prospect of losing to Joe Biden was so painful a blow to his ego that he was too willing to believe the theories of those who assured him the election was stolen, and that the Eastman memos afforded a solution.

But that is bad enough, and Trump does deserve criticism for the disgrace of January 6.  Other common criticisms of him are also perfectly just.  Take, for example, his predilection for exaggeration and falsehood.  It is not so much that Trump is a liar as that he is a bullshitter, in Harry Frankfurt’s famous sense of the term.  The liar, as Frankfurt points out, cares very much about the truth, if only to hide it.  The bullshitter, by contrast, is not primarily interested in truth or falsity so much as in saying whatever is useful for furthering some goal he has.  That may involve speaking a falsehood, but it might instead require speaking the truth.  The bullshitter doesn’t care so long as it works. 

This is why Trump will both say things that are true but which other politicians lack the courage to say (for example, that illegal immigration is a serious problem that neither party has been willing to deal with) while mixing them with arresting but absurd falsehoods that no one else would dare peddle (such as that Mexico would pay for a border wall).  The former lend credibility to the latter, and together such remarks function to create the impression that Trump alone has the boldness and vision to see and do what needs to be done.  Sometimes he will persist for quite a while with some particular bit of bullshit (as with the “birther” narrative about Barack Obama), other times he will deploy it only briefly (as when he repeated the ludicrous rumor that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination).  What determines what he says and how long he says it is whatever is necessary in order to “win” and close the “deal.”

Trump is also rightly criticized for the ugly and utterly disgraceful things he often says about people who stand in his way, as when he ridiculed the looks of a female political rival, and mocked Senator John McCain’s suffering as a prisoner of war.  Trump’s defenders sometimes try to minimize such behavior as mere New York brashness or the like.  But to any objective observer these are clear and grave examples of what moral theologians call the sin of contumely.  They are sinful because they unjustly deprive people of the respect they are owed.  They are grave because the humiliation they inflict is public, and because they greatly exacerbate the bitterness of contemporary social and political life. 

There are other manifestly immoral things Trump has done, such as his proposal to kill the families of terrorists, and his boasting of attempting to seduce a married woman and of taking advantage sexually of women attracted to him because of his fame.  And I have cited only some of the words and actions of his that are publicly verifiable – there are, of course, other grave accusations against him, which I leave out only because I do not know whether they are true.  Yet, though when running for president in 2015 Trump claimed to be a religious Christian, he also said that he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness for anything he’s done.

All of these things are intelligible given that Trump’s personality approximates that of the Hobbesian ego seeking to advance its own glory and self-interest (to “win”) in whatever way seems fitting to it, bound only by whatever terms it has contracted with others to follow (the “deal”).  Except that, unlike those who contract to leave Hobbes’s state of nature, Trump explicitly tells us that when he makes a deal he hopes to “crush” the other side and make sure that he alone truly benefits.

This also makes it intelligible why the same man who appointed the justices crucial to overturning Roe would now endorse policies diametrically opposed to the pro-life cause and to social conservatism generally.  Given the view of the world that Trump has consistently expressed and lived for decades, it would be absurd to suppose he personally cares about or even sees the point of the things social conservatives care about.  The obvious explanation for why he catered to them for as long as he did is that it was in his political interests to make such a “deal,” and now that he sees them as mostly a liability, the deal is off.

But that is not the worst of it.  Again, Trump explicitly tells us that he does not enter into a deal with a genuine concern to benefit the other side.  The aim of a deal, he writes, is to “crush the opponent and come away with something better for yourself.”  If the other side benefits, that is incidental, a byproduct of Trump benefiting.  Trump’s defenders often accuse his pro-life critics of insufficient “gratitude” for his role in overturning Roe.  This is like saying that a buyer owes a used auto dealer “gratitude” for selling him a decent car, and that this gratitude should keep him from complaining or taking his business elsewhere if the dealer later tries to sell him a lemon.

In any event, Trump himself is bound to interpret criticism from social conservatives as ingratitude, and here his explicit policy of revenge comes into play – in such a way that the situation for social conservatives in a second Trump administration is likely to be even worse than I described in my previous article.  For it’s not just that Trump will no longer promote their agenda, and it’s not just that he will even advocate policies that are positively contrary to that agenda.  It’s that, if social conservatives protest or resist this, Trump’s vindictive nature is likely to lead him to seek retaliation.  He may well, as he puts it, “get even,” “go after” them, “screw them back in spades,” “screw them back fifteen times harder.”

In this way, along with the other ways I’ve described in this article and my previous one, Trump is putting social conservatives in a very perilous position.  And in other respects too, he has done grave damage to the conservative movement.  His egotism constantly leads him into foolish and sometimes even dangerous behavior, such as his attempt to pressure Pence into unconstitutional action on January 6, and his unjust demonization of Republican officials in Georgia who would not do his bidding.  Such actions have sown division within the Republican Party and greatly damaged its reputation. 

Trump’s bad example has also rubbed off on too many of his followers.  Aping his predilection for bullshit, too many of them are prone to crackpot conspiracy theories and woolly “narrative thinking.”  Aping his aggressive boorishness, too many of them have become excessively bellicose and more interested in “own the libs” stunts than in serious and effective policy proposals.  Aping his imperative to “win” and make “deals” above all else, too many of them have become willing to compromise their principles for electoral victory.  Awed by the force of his personality, too many have become cult-like in their devotion, and intolerant of dissent.  Understandably frustrated by the fecklessness and cowardice of so many conservatives, they have embraced what they wrongly judge to be Trump’s masculine alternative.  Yet being an egotist and a bully is not masculinity, but rather a cartoonish distortion of masculinity.  If too many conservatives exhibit what Aquinas calls the vice of effeminacy, Trump represents an opposite extreme vice, not the sober, genuinely masculine middle ground.

Trump’s defenders will respond that the greatest danger nevertheless comes from the Left.  I agree, as I have made clear over and over and over again.  But it simply doesn’t follow that Trump is the remedy.  His essentially Hobbesian individualist ethos is simply another variation on the liberal disease that afflicts the modern body politic, rather than its cure.  Even then, it is less an ideology than merely the personality type of one man, who is unlikely to leave behind him even a coherent movement, much less a political philosophy, after he is gone.  His legacy will likely be a social conservatism that is greatly diminished in influence, and a larger conservative movement that will be less serious intellectually and remain internally divided indefinitely.

But though Trump is far from the instrument conservatives need, he is the instrument they are for the moment stuck with.  It is crucial that they be absolutely clear-eyed about what they are getting.  It is reasonable for them to hope that he might prevent or mitigate some of the damage done by the Left.  But they will have to be constantly on guard to prevent him from inflicting further damage of his own.

152 comments:

  1. No, Trump did not exactly tell people to inject bleach, as you wrote. However, you didn’t state what he did say, which is very close. I don’t understand why you would say anything about it, rather than appear dishonest like this. The full, exact quote: “I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My goodness', the article is critical of him enough as it is, and yet you can't resist accusing me of "dishonesty" for not going into detail on that particular episode?

      The overall context makes it clear that he was merely speculating on the spot about whether there might be some way to derive whatever is in bleach that is effective against the virus and make a medicine or the like. Yes, it's silly, but he was just thinking out loud off the cuff, and it isn't remotely close to telling people to inject bleach. It is silly to make more of it than it was.

      Delete
    2. Ed does not have the resources to seek truth when it comes to Trump. I sincerely doubt he is that incompetent in using the internet

      Delete
    3. "Ed does not have the resources to seek truth when it comes to Trump."

      Spoken like a true Trump cult member. A political party that devolves into a personality cult has no future.

      Delete
  2. Mr. Feser,
    What do you think of Trump wishing Mary a happy birthday a week ago?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm inclined to think it was motivated by the pushback he's been getting from Catholics on abortion and IVF. Of course, if he's made such comments before, a different interpretation would be reasonable. But I assume he hasn't.

      Delete
    2. I forgot to ask this earlier as well, but do you think his avoidance, during the debate, of saying that he would veto a national abortion ban (contrary to Vance's saying that Trump definitely would veto such a ban) is at all promising?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I think it shows that the pro-lifers who have been criticizing him have had some effect, and that he knows he can't entirely write them off at the moment. We need to keep up the pressure.

      Delete
    4. I disagree, Dr. Feser. I think Trump tends to push back against pushback. I don’t think his wishing Mary a happy birthday was cynical. I think the man has just spent a long time thinking about business and being a liberal billionaire playboy. But I think there is something of a change him where he has actually considered the merits of religion. I’m not saying he’s a man of God, but I don’t think he’s cynical about religion either. I think he’s just divided on it and getting a lot of contradictory advice from neo-cons and traditional conservatives. If he got conflicting advice on business matters, he can stay strong because of his own expertise, but that is harder to do on moral questions because he has not formed his conscience.

      Delete
    5. I wish people would watch the interviews with Vance and Trump that get the spicy headlines. Vance and Trump have been extremely qualified in their answers.

      For example, in Vance's "Trump would veto a ban" interview, Vance tries to dodge the question. Makes it a state's rights issue. Gives a loose negation answer. And when pressed, finally says the only thing that wouldn't tank the Trump campaign--he "thinks" Trump would veto.

      I think Vance is very pro-life, but also realizes the political climate. You have to get elected (as Trump has said). People shouldn't be naively optimistic about Trump, but they should also read the social temperature, and between the lines, with how Trump/Vance are handling this issue.

      It's not Trump's fault that Republicans are losing their way and pro-life social conservatives are losing power.

      Delete
    6. I completely agree with anonymous' assessment on 09/17 at 4:08. People can change and on abortion Trump has changed. I think that the comment on how he responds to pressure is extremely insightful which is why I think a cynical and coercive approach to trying to influence Trump on social issues will backfire. For reasons mentioned above by Dr. Feser, there is manifest good in Trump and approaching him with sincerity and evidence isn't naive. We tend to listen to people who we think have goodwill toward us and Trump has been influenced by people around him to change his position on issues including abortion and the need to protect Christians from being targeted by policies from the left. He has recently talked about creating a task force to investigate the persecution of Christians under leftist policies which are put forward in the name of DEI. Like anonymous said, he just needs to continually have principled people around him who both communicate their love for him and the reasons behind the principled positions on all of these issues. That is what is needed. The strong arm approach won't be effective.

      Delete
    7. "It's not Trump's fault that Republicans are losing their way and pro-life social conservatives are losing power."

      That's right. Social conservatives cannot seem to come to grips with the fact that it's their own families and especially churches and neighbors, (generally speaking) that have giddily embraced hedonism and libertinism and collective responsibility. Yet they expect the state to save a degenerate population from itself?

      But they don't want to be saved. Which means that your only political choices other than the contract/libertarian solution of letting them destroy themselves at a strict legal distance, is to become their slave in some sense. To either become an enabling or cooperating slave of their slavery to their own deranged passions, or to lose your freedom in another way, by perpetually becoming their warders.

      Delete
    8. @DNW

      Hedonism is a past-oriented archetype. Its name comes from GRΣΣK and the stereotype for it subsists in the Greco-Roman Epicurean who engages in all sorts of Earthly delights. Probably internally-oriented too. :)

      Jambe, the chocolate sauce!

      Delete
    9. Ed said " We need to keep up the pressure."

      Trump flip flopping on Pro life is not good. However Harris and company are an order of magnitude worst as you note.

      I will vote for Trump. See that he is elected. Then when he is safely elected Pro-Lifers can turn up the heat.

      Till then I am not risking a Harris Presidency.

      Cheers boss. You rock.

      Delete
  3. yeah, you guys are screwed, at LEAST our 'populist' politicians in Europe are serious politicians who have serious policy proposals and an idea on how to execute them.

    Whether one thinks those policies are good and / or moral is another matter, but Le-pen, Orban, and Wilders are serious politicians who know how to make sausages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "yeah, you guys are screwed, at LEAST our 'populist' politicians in Europe are serious politicians who have serious policy proposals and an idea on how to execute them."

      that sounds cool.

      Delete
  4. That analysis was fascinant. It helped see the man with a more complex view, who he really is behind the persona, you can say. On a naturalistic world, it is sure a more reasonable view that what his oponents have.

    And the post did a very good job at ilustrating a very big problem with conservatives and traditionalists not only there but here as well: allying with people whose worldviews are way closer to oponents. One can unite to face this or that controversy, but to let these lead or take their ideas as your basis? Nah.

    On the EUA this is probably even more controversial, of course, for it seems to me that the country was born exactly with a more lockean worldview that is already extremely nocive, so one with a classical view needs to in a sense be a revolutionary there, but that can be a opinion only.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I see you mentioned Trump's Playboy interview. Back in the day, some people would say they only read the magazine for the articles, and didn't look at the photos. But that wasn't true for most people. President Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Playboy when he ran for office. I read that interview when I did a paper on Carter while I was in college. I won't say whether I looked at the photos.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow Dr Feser! This is such an informative article. I doubt any critique of Trump has actually gone as far as to read his books, severely criticise his actions but give him some credit where it's due (On illegal immigration etc). Uncritical Trump supporters who think Dr Feser is being disingenuous really need to take this seriously. I doubt that you'll find a more fair minded critique. When a top catholic and conservative philosopher takes precious time out of his busy schedule (literally days) to really analyse Trump's personality, ideology etc, People should take notice.

    Over at his blog, Dr J Budziszewski, also offers his critique of the Trump Vance position, His observations are really academic and scholarly.

    https://www.undergroundthomist.org/ending-the-culture-war-over-abortion

    Dr Feser,you should actually share it on twitter. Do give it a look. No one has done more from a popular standpoint to bring attention to Classical Natural Law Theory. He gets questions from all over the world.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like your interaction with your readers, Dr. Feser. Much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is reported that Vance backtracked his claim that Trump would veto a national abortion ban.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/15/vance-trump-abortion-ban-veto-00179224

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for this balanced piece. I think there are things that even to win Trump will not do, like backing off of certain statements from expediency. On the other hand the cruelty of his words about other people I've always chalked up to his analysis that to win he needs to be cruel, and cruelty is acceptable to his ethics. This time around, on abortion, I think the reason he's so extreme is to counteract the almost incalculable impact of the Roe reversal. Women of a certain age and the women they have taught will not stand for anything that subtracts from absolute equality with men. I think Trump calculates that winning is impossible without conceding on abortion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, this is something missing from Feser's analysis. He acts like Trump is in a vacuum, as a social liberal who wants to impose his will, only siding with conservatives for expediency.

      Whether or not that is true, the reality is that feminism has had a much larger impact on abortion policy. The overturning of Roe v. Wade, a win for conservatives, is actually a liability for them in a 21st century liberal democracy. The majority of voters in red states rejecting abortion bans is indicative of the times, and has nothing to do with Trump.

      Delete
  10. I'm glad you're being more charitable towards Trump by acknowledging some of his virtues and calling out the lies against him.

    A Trump loss would be bad for the pro life movement. Not only would we risk Tomas and Alito being replaced by Kamala, we also risk Congress reimplementing Roe. At the very least, the government would push abortion pills access even more aggressively on the public.

    The pro life issue hurts candidates at the ballot box. I wish it wasn't so, but it is. It doesn't do pro lifers any good to make these morally pure statements only to get crushed in an election. Abortion supporters are comfortable with Democrats being "personally pro life" so long as they're politically pro choice. Abortion supporters don't demand Democrat politicians openly champion abortion up to birth. They just need to vote for it even as they deny it's happening. The pro life movement should adopt these successful political tactics and make alliances with people like Trump who are "personally pro choice" but politically pro life. It seems like too many pro lifers would accept Roe being the law of the land so long as the Republican platform had a strongly worded statement condemning abortion.

    Trump will appoint pro life judges. He'll reinstitute the Mexico City Policy. If we work with him, he'll have the DOJ prosecute pro abortion terrorists and he'll pardon pro life protesters. We even have the potential to rein in the abortion pill flood unleashed by Biden.

    It's unreasonable for pro lifers to demand senior partner status. Trump has more leverage, but if we help him win, he'll give us the opportunity to ban abortion at the state level. He's already said he's voting against Amendment 4 in Florida. Ironically, Trump has done more to speak out against Amendment 4 than a lot of pro life influencers attacking him. Pro lifers who don't like Trump should focus more time attacking ballot initiatives to legalize abortion in AZ, FL, MO, NE, and SD because those votes will be close.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the abortion purity test is a total loser of a strategy going forward. Pro lifers need to get smarter, and realize they are the minority with diminishing leverage.

      Trump has done more for the pro life cause than any other president of the last 50 years, but because he's had to make strategic statements to be viable for re-election, he gets attacked by pro lifers who unreasonably demand policy purity on the issue.

      Delete
    2. Trump fools people. Trump is evil is, as evil does. Trump is an ungodly person and only thinks about himself.

      Delete
  11. Is it possible Trump has changed somewhat since then? Just a simple tweet saying “Happy Birthday Mary”,which I think is unprecedented for a former president, indicates that his thoughts on religion are a little more complex than they were in the eighties.

    I don’t think Trump honoring Mary was cynical either since it is not really politically advantageous to such a thing in a Protestant country. I think Feser’s criticisms are valid but there is more to the story.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Imagine in 2024 writing a long, LONG screed like this one about how bad Trump is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imagine thinking that that is an interesting comment.

      Delete
  13. It is really hypocritical to now justify voting for Trump with his full reversion to his opposition to criminalizing abortion. That he is "better" for the pro Life cause is a conclusion that can be drawn only by assuming criminalization is the means to stop abortion when, just as if not more plausibly, Democratic proposals to reinstate the child tax credit and other child friendly legislation are far more likely to induce more people to choose life. As his Holiness stated, this election is a "lesser of two evils" election and Catholics in good conscience can draw their own conclusions about under which candidate there will be fewer abortions - irrespective of its legality or illegality. I choose compassionate, rational authenticity over irrational race baiting and erratic, chaotic obsession over crowd size and made up stories about voter fraud any day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What hypocrisy? My position on whether to vote for him is exactly the same as what I said in my earlier article. I haven't changed my mind.

      Delete
    2. The lesser of two evils, is still evil. Where does it say to vote for the lesser evil, in the Bible? Or the words of Our Lord?

      Delete
  14. Another reason why Trump won't solve our problems: the nature of government.

    1. Government is fundamentally different from the private sector. For example, the private sector has bankruptcy as an enforcer of good faith: the Federal government relies upon procedures--which don't work, but there's no alternative.

    "Deep state" can only be addressed by a legal/regulatory approach: sustained, disciplined, & analytical. Mean tweets have absolutely no effect...except for a harmful one.

    2. Alliances are critical in any human endeavor, but the Lone Ranger approach is especially impossible in the Federal government. Trump attacks his allies...and damages them.

    There is zero possibility that an 80 year old man will save us acting alone: and Trump attacks those allies who are strong--preferring sycophants.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, despite all the negativity that Prof. Feser is generating, this post did finally convince me to look up recent polling data to find that Harris is going to comfortably win my state. And not only that, but my Republican senator candidate has gone on record formally as pro choice as well.

    Which means that I can easily and with clear conscience write in the ASP candidate. No point in voting for the lesser of two evils when my vote isn't even going to meaningfully help the lesser evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am almost to where you are. I live in a red state, which affords me the luxury of voting my conscience. My three adult children are voting ASP, and my daughter tells me it's the fastest growing third party.

      Delete
  16. We are not canonizing a saint, electing a pope, appointing a bishop, ordaining a priest. We are attempting to put a person in place who is willing to carry some of our issues to a place where they can be honestly engaged and get some of them operative.
    If nothing else, the Supreme Court is a critical issue. Someone reminded me how important the senate races are as well. Should the anti-life party win a significant majority along with it presidential candidate we can kiss the electoral college as well as filibuster good-bye. They will make Puerto Rico and DC states and will have the Demoniacs in power for ever.
    Do you want an expanded Supreme Court? Do you want four new demoniac senators from two new states? Do you want your voice to be made illegal as we observe in Canada, Britain, and the rest of Europe?
    Put the hanky away and get on the battlefield.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello James,

      "We are not canonizing a saint, electing a pope, appointing a bishop, ordaining a priest."

      Feser is not arguing that we are doing any of those things.

      "We are attempting to put a person in place who is willing to carry some of our issues to a place where they can be honestly engaged and get some of them operative."

      Feser argues that Trump will only attempt to enact a policy if it is "in his political interests to make such a 'deal,'" and now that Trump sees socially conservative policies as "mostly a liability, the deal is off." Do you disagree with this? If so, why? There's a lot of evidence for it, as Feser lays out.

      Delete
  17. How "pro-life" actually plays out in the real world https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/09/homicide-life-after-dobbs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lady died from complications of abortion pill. Baby died but the corpse was not fully expelled. So much for abortions being safe.

      Delete
  18. Very nice article, thank you for the time you spent on this.
    It's ironic that at the end of the day, the voters will also need to make a deal with Trump using exactly his strategies (be on guard to call off the deal when it no longer suits them, get revenge by at a worst case scenario impeaching him, avoid a compromise in the pro-life actions and go all-in on winning while making the other party lose, etc.). This just proves how right you are at asserting that Trump only accelerated the decay in American (and world) politics.

    Now to end with an optimistic note, usually when we are at the bottom is when the Truth makes itself brighter and people open their eyes. This could serve to show people on the next election cycle how disconnected from reality these politicians are (assuming a good decent person runs).

    ReplyDelete
  19. Not sure what the point of this extended psychoanalysis is. This election is about politics and policy, not motives of vanity or personality.

    Trump promised, and obtained, the overruling of Roe v. Wade after 50 years of "pro-life" Republicans getting nowhere despite all their Supreme Court nominations. He promised, and obtained: energy independence, no new wars, tariffs on China, a better trade deal than NAFTA, exit from the Paris Accords, drastic reduction in federal regs, the return of manufacturing jobs to the US, the lowest unemployment rate and the highest GDP growth in 50 years, the biggest tax cuts since Reagan, and security at the border.

    Further, as an attorney who practices in the field of federal civil rights law, I know that any federal abortion ban MUST be vetoed because it would disastrously preempt any stricter state law. Trump rightly observes that this matter belongs with the states. The federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with this issue as any federal legislation would only effectively revive Roe by establishing a federal abortion right "floor" via the federal exceptions, making the "ban" illusory. Feser should be astute enough to see this. As for IVF, federal subsidy or compelled insurance coverage isn't going to happen.

    And, finally, if Trump is not elected we can reasonably expect either World War III, provoked by the bipartisan War Party that despises Trump, or at least an endless conflict in which Ukraine is totally ruined for nothing.

    In short, who gives a hoot about Trump's personality in a political environment already infested with psychopaths whose policies would doom this country to an EU-style soft tyranny. Feser has gone astray here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not sure what the point of this extended psychoanalysis is. This election is about politics and policy, not motives of vanity or personality."

      And yet when we go to the polls, we'll be voting for candidates (i.e. persons with personalities), not for policies as such.

      Delete
    2. "Trump promised, and obtained, the overruling of Roe v. Wade after 50 years of "pro-life" Republicans getting nowhere despite all their Supreme Court nominations. He promised, and obtained: energy independence, no new wars, tariffs on China, a better trade deal than NAFTA, exit from the Paris Accords, drastic reduction in federal regs, the return of manufacturing jobs to the US, the lowest unemployment rate and the highest GDP growth in 50 years, the biggest tax cuts since Reagan, and security at the border.
      ...any federal legislation would only effectively revive Roe by establishing a federal abortion right "floor" via the federal exceptions, making the "ban" illusory.
      ... if Trump is not elected we can reasonably expect either World War III, provoked by the bipartisan War Party that despises Trump, or at least an endless conflict in which Ukraine is totally ruined for nothing.
      "

      What that guy said. And said well.

      Delete
  20. One of the best pieces I've ever read about Trump. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Trumpism is a cult. And yes, it's dangerous. I'm not sure who I'm voting for. But I am absolutely certain it won't be Donald Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You only used the word 'record' once in your essay, and it was to criticize Trump. Regardless of what you may think he really believes, he has a pro-life, anti-war record that is second to none of the modern Republican Presidents. You seem to be too easily baited by rhetoric, which is a real head scratcher considering you're a champion of scholastic philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, it's not just rhetoric, it's a record that includes removing the pro-life plank from the platform, favoring keeping abortion legal even past six weeks, advocating federal funding for IVF, etc.

      Second, presumably you do not think "rhetoric" is irrelevant, since I'm sure you take rhetoric from Biden, Harris, et al. seriously as an indicator of what sorts of policies they would favor. And statements that are consistent over time are especially indicative. But what I called attention to were statements from Trump that indicate how he looks at the world and that have been consistent over time. if a guy explicitly tells you, for example, that he tries to make "deals" that benefit him but not the other side, and that he always gets revenge on those who cross him, why on earth would a rational person not take such statements seriously and indicative of the kind of man one is dealing with?

      Delete
  23. What's so bad about marijuana? I guess it makes people enjoy life and we all know where that leads.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/drunk-stoned-perverted-dead.html

      Delete
    2. I smoked weed from around 1970 to 1980. I got pleasantly high, but never stoned. After I got married and had children, I gave it up.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Intoxicants of all sorts are fundamental to human culture and creativity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036192301630082X

      The swipe at "foodies" supports my original guess that what you are really against is enjoyment.

      I can't really imagine the attraction of such a narrow crabbed view of life. It gives reason a bad name.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Intoxicants of all sorts are fundamental to human culture and creativity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036192301630082X

      Neat.

      Given that Ed explicitly makes the distinction between intoxicant use that doesn't undermine reason and intoxicant use which does undermine reason what are we infer from your comment here? That some intoxicants can be used to our benefit without undermining reason or that whatever pet benefit you have in mind justified undermining said reason?

      The former is consistent with Ed's position. The latter has to contend with the obvious fact that deliberately stupefying ourselves is...uh...rather a stupid thing to do. But maybe you can square the circle for us.

      Delete
    5. Undermining reason is the point. It's necessary for creativity and for reason in the broad sense. Ask these guys https://www.famousscientists.org/14-famous-scientists-inventors-who-experimented-with-drugs/

      Delete
    6. Pot belongs to the set of solutions to life. What else should a man do if everyone else outclassed and outshines him?

      And don't say spit on your hands, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and become the self-made man. George H. W. Bush taught that.

      "Getting high is for the birds." - computer game for Windows 98 I played programmed by D.A.R.E.

      Delete
    7. @ccmnxc:

      According to amp, to uphold reason "in the broad sense," it is necessary to undermine it. Given his praise for stupefying drugs, I think we can safely presume that they have already taken their toll on his mushy brain and this sillyness is the best we will ever get from him.

      Delete
    8. Part of me wants to be sympathetic, as I'm sure there have been instances where altered states of consciousness have helped bring about certain insights or flashes of creativity. But I can't help but have the impression that for most people most of the time, those insights and breakthroughs get crowded out by more wide-ranging detachment from reality.

      Even the list of scientists/inventors amp cited didn't go into much detail as to how responsible those drugs were for actually producing these great breakthroughs or for their scientific and technological output. And even if it were the case that said drugs played an important role, it's not hard to find many examples of people who were visited by ruin rather than deep insight into reality.

      In short, I can grant that intoxicant use is both widespread throughout human history and that it has played some role, some times in genuinely creative insight. But it is a far stronger claim to say that drug use was both necessary for such creativity (such that we could not have achieved these things otherwise) and that it has been, on the whole, better for grounding people in reality than in detaching them from it. Because if we're honest, it's trivially easy to find examples of people in the latter category simply by walking down the street or having a sufficiently large circle of acquaintances.

      Delete
    9. Intoxicants of all sorts are fundamental to human culture

      If by "fundamental" you mean "widely prevalent," yes. And so is ethnic bigotry. And slavery.

      Delete
  24. Interesting article, Ed, thank you. As someone who detests Trump while also detesting elements of the criticism against him, I agree with much of what you write.

    However, I certainly don't think that the Trump actually values charitable giving, given that his foundation settled a $2 Million lawsuit in which the foundation issued 19 separate admissions and had to reimburse 8 separate charities. The foundation was shut down shortly thereafter by the court, although Trump himself had attempted to dissolve the foundation in 2016.

    Yes, Leticia James (the prosecutor) is probably a hack, but I nevertheless find the behavior of Trump and his foundation around this area to be appalling.

    https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation

    https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JLJih9v_PLUS_EKSuJs36THzexg==&system=prod

    -- AKruger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know enough about that case to comment, but what I mainly had in mind are stories of personal kindness that I've heard over the years, like those recounted here:

      https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/opinion/2020/10/trump-has-performed-many-acts-of-kindness-letter.html

      It doesn't seem reasonable to me to deny that he does sometimes do these sorts of things. A person can be a raging egomaniac and still have genuine moments of compassion and fellow-feeling. People are complex.

      Delete
    2. Many presidents have quietly performed acts of kindness. Reagan did a lot of that. Even when George Wallace was a hard-line segregationist governor, he was known for helping people without health insurance to get healthcare free at the University of Alabama. He would sometimes write personal checks to people who wrote to him. Yes, people are complex.

      Delete
    3. I personally don't buy that he is genuinely philanthropic for a second, but I of course acknowledge that people are very complex. Thanks for the reply.

      -- AKruger

      Delete
  25. Do I understand this correctly, it is beyond the pale to "ridicule(...) the looks of a female political rival" but virtuous to take the time to pen a monumental piece attacking someone's character as fundamentally and irredeemably evil? Clearly imputing the worst motive is totally fine for you, as Trump, alone amongst living humans is incapable of any change at all, right?
    Your take on the Mary post reveals a lot of your desire to interpret whatever Trump does in the worst possible light.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shorter anon: "Sure, Trump explicitly praises revenge, seducing other men's wives, and screwing people over when making deals with them, but why do you have to put a negative spin on it?"

      Delete
    2. I see I may have been less than perfect in expressing the core of my argument.
      Warning against putting hope in princes is absolutely fine and you will get no argument from me there.
      However, that does not require you to state that publishing a "Happy Birthday Mary" post on x is motivated by trying to dupe catholics into voting for him. Especially since you seem to hold that all catholic voters in states that have an undecided race must vote for Trump/Vance as the lesser evil, and no catholic can justify voting for Harris/Walz under any circumstance.
      So why would he need to pander, and if he does not need to and is as uniquely selfish as you claim why would he?
      And you did not answer the question: Why do you think attacking outward appear

      Delete
    3. Granted.
      But why is it unacceptable to denigrate someone's appearance but fine to denigrate someone's character as immutably flawed and irredeemably ugly?

      Delete
    4. Anon
      Maybe it's because, we could have had a better candidate in the form of De Santis in the primaries, but like a woman under the delusion that she can change her abusive boyfriend, we went for Trump in the hopes that he will "change", that he is "redeemable", but who only took advantage of the Social Conservatives as long as it benefitted him, we didn't have to be stuck with Trump but here we are. As Prof said at the end, given the option, we have to go with Trump as the lesser evil. But it doesn't mean we have to show slavish devotion to him and avoid criticising him no matter what.

      The post of Prof isn't primarily a observation of the current circumstance, but rather a warning to end this abusive relationship at the next opportunity that presents itself.

      Like ending any relationship, we should be grateful for the good times like appointing the justices that struck down Roe v Wade but we shouldn't dwell on it in such a way that we delude ourselves into thinking that this is the best we can get, that's what the abusive boyfriend wants the girl to think, but she has to realise she deserves better, that WE deserve better.

      Delete
    5. "immutably flawed and irredeemably ugly?"

      You seem to volunteering yourself as a hypocrite, seeing as you're inserting the words "immutably" and "irredeemably" into Feser's mouth. Trump has been remarkably consistent in his immoral statements and stances for decades. If you prefer to cast a blind eye toward that, enjoy your blindness.

      Delete
    6. Trump is applying for a job where the content of his character is a relevant criteria for the job description. His physical appearance is not (at least insofar as his physical appearance reflects aesthetic preferences and not his health).

      An "ugly" character is a reflection of the kinds of decisions he will make, which is kind of a big deal when you are considering whether or not to give him authority to make important decisions.

      Delete
    7. Dear Dr. Feser, As you know from my comments, I am a great fan of your important work. However, I think anonymous has an important point about the Happy Birthday Mary tweet that merits consideration. There is reason to think that Trump is sincere on a whole range of issues as you noted in the article and there is not sufficient reason to think that we can know that his intentions are insincere in the Mary tweet. He has a faithful Catholic wife who has no doubt communicated to him the importance of the Blessed Virgin and that tweet likely comes from the influence and instruction of a faithful Catholic wife that loves him. Reading his intentions cynically and then publicly casting aspersion on them is, of course, a serious thing that I hope you will reconsider.

      Delete
    8. Hello Michael Copas

      His wife personally spoke out at the log cabin republicans event , of all the possible republican issues, pro life, pro family, she chose the log cabin republicans.

      Perhaps it is you who should reconsider.

      Delete
    9. First, apologies for the double post, I thought the first one was actually lost and did not care to retype it, hence the 7:55pm & 7:58pm posts.

      @Norm, perhaps, although I do not agree. We have the benefit to have seen Trump in office, and he did not seek revenge against his enemies. Mrs. Clinton was not even charged with anything unless I missed something big. I think the social conservative issue is pretty much reduced to abortion/IVF. These are, sadly but importantly, not winning issues at the ballot box right now. That needs to change, for sure. But we need to be prudent about it. Which means winning this election and then changing hearts and minds. Politicians will follow when we manage to switch back from the culture of death to the culture of life.
      @anon 4:16am - it is not a quote. I think it is justifiably paraphrased as we are presented with evidence of published words over a decade old and not looking, e.g. At the record as president, where he did not seek revenge against Mrs. Clinton, as he would have been actually justified to do, given the appearance of actual criminal cunduct by that Democrat politician.
      @anon 4:57am - I agree that character is an issue, however we have more than the words of a ghost writer to judge his need for revenge by as he was President for four years.
      @Michael Copas - thank you. I wish I had read your post before I made my first one, yours is far better in makingnmy core point.

      @ Dr. Feser, thank you for engaging in this debate. Please consider what Michael Copas said better than I did.
      As always I do appreciate your posts and comments.

      Delete
    10. @Michael Copas

      His happy birthday tweet reminded me of this scene from Full Metal Jacket.

      Happy Birthday Scene

      It's as if nobody watches movies anymore.

      Delete
    11. Hi Anon

      Nothing said so far is contrary to winning this election.

      Is the mere pointing out of Trump's flaws contrary to winning elections?

      Delete
    12. @Norm - that is a bit of a strawman, which derails this conversation from my point.

      But let us take that short detour. To answer, of course it is increasing the chances of winning for the illicit option (Harris). However, this is only morally relevant because it is a binary choice and the Trump/Vance option, while clearly imperfect, is morally licit, while Harris/Walz is morally impermissible.

      End of detour.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. @Cosmic Cat

      Right. You read it cynically as Feser does. Now to actually enter into the discussion, you would have to offer support for *WHY* you read it cynically. You do, after all, realize that this is a philosophical blog and not facebook where you just click the "like" button and then move on?

      Delete
    15. @Michael Copas

      Very well, here's the philosophical take.

      Does authorial intent matter in fiction? That is, can J. K. Rowling type
      Dumbledore IEI after she finished writing?

      Answer: That depends on if you think fiction reflects reality. Because only lies (that is, mythology) require that you know the author's intent. Because you can only tell what a lie means if you know the intention of the liar. But if fiction is something disjoint from mythology, then no, you never need to know the author's intention.

      Delete
    16. Michael

      Speaking at an event for log cabin republicans and advocating for their "rights" is incompatible with being a "faithful catholic" especially given that those rights are against the rights of a child to have a traditional family.

      And as such, it is all the more reason to take his wish to Mary with a pinch of salt. When Trump comes out and says, Life should be protected at all stages in the womb from conception and Marriage is between a man and a woman, I'll be willing to think there's some faithful catholic influence on him. If he reinstates the commitment to life and traditional marriage in the Republican Party Platform, then we can think there's some faithful catholic influence.

      Until then we are right to regard him with suspicion.

      Delete
    17. From my efforts to understand the mirky mass of your last comment (Have you had a course in rhetoric taught by Kamala Harris?), you seem to be suggesting that we need some philosophical analysis of lying. Well that is quite true and since you have not provided that analysis in your mirky mass, I will do the work for you.

      To lie is to *deliberately* state what is false. Or said differently, it is to assert what you know to be false. So, there are two components involved in identifying a lie. 1. It must be false, and 2. it must be known to be false.

      As an example, if Jeff says in court, "Joe was not at the bar at that time because he was with me at the baseball game" and numerous witnesses can attest that Jeff was instead in Hawaii with Joe at a surfing competition on the date in question, then Jeff is clearly lying. What he said is factually false and he knew better.

      Now that we some clarity on what a lie is and how we can identify a lie, how does this apply to the Mary tweet? Well Trump is not stating something that can be confirmed or denied in the same way that the example above with Jeff. He is stating his internal disposition with regard to the blessed Virgin Mary. He is stating, "I wish her a Happy Birthday." So you have no means of confirming or denying the truth of his testimony in this regard. You can look at it cynically, but you have no rational basis for that cynicism which is precisely my point.

      Now that your Kamala Harris word salad has been tidied up, you can move on to confusing yourself on other issues. Or you might reassess your approach.

      Delete
    18. Michael Copas

      If you want to keep pretending that Trump genuinely cares about Catholic social issues on the basis of an off the cuff tweet where he wished Mother Mary, be my guest.

      You and I seem to be having different senses of the word sincere. Your sense seem to be suggesting that Trump's wish indicates that he believes Mother Mary exists and hence has wished her a Happy Birthday to "show" respect or regard etc.

      I am not quibbling with that.

      I am just saying that such respect can't be genuine whatever else it might be because of the way in which he has abandoned catholic causes. To respect or regard Mother Mary is to respect her obedience to God, that would involve respecting the Church's teaching on abortion and traditional marriage and advocating for it. Trump in this campaign has acted contrary to all these teachings.

      And as such his respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary can't be genuine because he doesn't respect what she stands for. It's more akin to Judas kissing Jesus before betraying him.

      Your failure and that of others to recognise this is precisely the kind of attitude that got Trump elected in the primary in the first place when it was clear that Desantis should have been the nominee You can call me Kamala all you want.

      If Trump loses this election, people like you will be the first to blame social conservatives but in reality it will be the fault of the people who made him the nominee and continued to defend him despite his abandonment of long standing party principles. Until then you can Kamala call everyone till the cows come home because most of us have better things to do like defending the fundamental values of life and family.

      It doesn't matter what Trump's internal disposition is, it's his policy proposals and words that matter, his external acts, as Dr Feser mentioned.



      Delete
    19. Norm, your last comment is scandalous.

      The notion that only perfected humans can be sincere in expressing well whishes towards others is inimicable to basic Catholic anthropology and theology. For your underlying logic to be true any sin must make any form of love impossible, in other words there would be only mortal sin, no venial sin. Because that contradicts Catholic teaching at least one implicit premise of your argument fails.

      Your claim "his respect for the Blessed Virgin Mary (...) (i)s more akin to Judas kissing Jesus before betraying him" ― is extremely uncharitable. Since you have no basis for your claim (but for the false argument you made and your prejudice) it would have been prudent to avoid any such statement, to put it mildly.

      Delete
    20. Felix

      You are reading into my comments what I didn't say.

      You are conflating "sin" in general with specific sins of being against church teaching on morality.

      Mother Mary is the embodiment of catholic teaching on morality by her example and obedience to God. She desires that each and every human being come to know her son Christ. Can anyone who doesn't oppose the brutal killing of those human beings in the womb be sincere in their wishes to Mother Mary ?

      Christ said, Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. Christ went so far as to identify with the most vulnerable.

      We are all Children of God the Father. Do you think Mother Mary would understand as "sincere", the birthday wish of someone who does not oppose the killing of her children ? Someone who openly says that a six week abortion ban is too restrictive thereby thwarting the efforts of those who are actually fighting for life ? Another analogy might be,

      Can a Father take the birthday wish of someone who is okay with letting that Father's children die as long it suits their benefit , to be sincere ?

      For example, That someone could be a Camp Instructor who lets the Children under his watch be kidnapped into child labour for a sum of money and is not even apologetic about it. If that unapologetic instructor sends birthday wishes to one of the parents whose children he allowed to be kidnapped, could there be any sincerity ?

      "I allowed your children to be kidnapped for monetary benefit, but Hey, I wish you a Happy Birthday ".

      "I am actively allowing your children to be murdered, so I can win the election, but Hey Mother Mary, I wish you a Happy Birthday "

      Could there be any semblance of sincerity here ?

      Now, don't say that, Trump didn't say this "exact statement". The "actively allowing" aspect is in his policy proposals.

      What you fail to grasp is that we have a relationship to Mother Mary , She is our Spiritual Mother and the issue at hand is the most fundamental of all, LIFE.

      There's a difference between being in a state of sin while recognising that it is a sinful state so as to work towards reconciliation and on the other hand being so obstinate in sin so as to not even recognise it as sin. In the first case, one's wish may be genuine.

      Trump's external acts decidedly falls in the latter, not only has he been averse to pro life policies, he has been openly condescending of states which have enacted strong pro life policies, he has constantly come out against six week bans even while voting for it. He has promised to mandate IVF for insurance companies which is hundred times worse than Obama mandating contraception. And Trump has done this knowing that he is acting against Pro Life Principles.

      Serious thinkers like Dr Feser have even questioned whether it's permissible for JD Vance to receive Communion while he still on the Trump ticket. That's the level of scandal that Trump has been causing.

      Delete
    21. Norm, I just read your comment. I do not have much time right now, so just a quick response to your last point.

      Canon law says this about the issue:

      "Can. 915 — Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur excommunicati et interdicti post irrogationem vel declarationem poenae aliique in manifesto gravi peccato obstinate perseverantes.
      Can. 916 — Qui conscius est peccati gravis, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam ne celebret neve Corpori Domini communicet, nisi adsit gravis ratio et deficiat opportunitas confitendi; quo in casu meminerit se obligatione teneri ad eliciendum actum perfectae contritionis, qui includit propositum quam primum confitendi."

      No serious thinker can actually hold that "being on the Trump ticket" is gravely sinful per se so as to trigger the prohibition of canon 916. Even more clear is that canon 915 does not apply, being silent on abortion policy is neither gravely sinful per se, nor is it a "manifest" grave sin, nor does Vance "obstinately persist" in it. For some princes of the church even flagrantly promoting abortion for decades does not satisfy canon 915 for Biden. While this is a disregard of the law most likely, contrast not constantly repeating Church teaching on abortion. Especially when the pope himself has admonished "rigid" catholics to not constantly harp on this when we could issue confusing statements instead, it at the very least cannot be obstinate, as he just follows the command of the pope.

      More generally, to focus a political campaign on winning issues is not per se gravely sinful. Interpreting silence as a repudiation of longstanding positions when an easy explanation is the prudent focusing on winning campaign issues is not convincing.

      Delete
    22. Norm, as to your argument regarding whether "genuine" love could have been expressed by Trump in the post in question.

      Your argument was that "(t)o respect or regard Mother Mary is to respect her obedience to God, that would involve respecting the Church's teaching on abortion and traditional marriage and advocating for it."

      This is a premise that is not true, at least not in the absolute way you state it.

      It cannot be denied that young children can and do love their mother and father, even if they do not fully understand what that means.
      But let us look at a different example, namely Saint Peter. Would you really want to claim that Peter did not genuinely love Christ from the day he was called by Him? And yet he was severely rebuked and denied Christ.

      Let us look at the possible meaning of "genuine" next.
      (see
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genuine
      and
      https://www.oed.com/dictionary/genuine_adj1?tab=meaning_and_use ― for the Oxford English Dictionary you need access either personal or through an institution).

      Let us consider the senses 4a and 5 of the OED, which seem to be closest to what would be applicable here.

      4.a. Having the character or origin represented; real, true, not counterfeit, unfeigned, †unadulterated. (1639)
      Here the question is clearly whether the post expresses an actual sentiment or is simply to promote something else, e.g. "is made in order to court the catholic vote."

      5. Of persons: Free from affectation or hypocrisy. (1890)
      This sense does not strictly apply here because we are only talking about an expression of one of many sentiments not the totality of the person. However, if we restrict this to this particular sentiment it would mean it is genuine if this sentiment is expressed without affectation or hypocrisy. And, bearing in mind that charity compels to not read an act that is not malum in se as badly motivated without proof, there is no compelling reason to assume that the post on x was not "free from affectation or hypocrisy."

      It is possible that the post is not "genuine" if, and only if, it does not express a genuine sentiment of its author. But it is quite possible to be "genuine" even if the sentiment is marred by a lack of perfection.

      Delete

    23. Your analogies are not convincing, for example the President is not the Legislature, so he cannot be "actively allowing" anything. You presumably know that the Church has not excommunicated all European politicians who have not enacted a total abortion ban. Saint John Paul II. teaches "The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defence of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re-establishment of a just order in the defence and promotion of the value of life." (Evangelium Vitae 90)
      The use of "realistically attainable" strongly indicates that in a fallen world and a democratic order tainted by the prevalence of the Culture of Death politicians are required to be prudent, attain the attainable, and seek to change the culture gradually. Which the cannot do if they are not elected because they naively assume the Culture of Death will enthusiastically vote for its abolition.

      To sum it up, you double down on your claim that it is impossible to love the Blessed Virgin, even imperfectly, unless one embraces Catholic teachings about marriage and abortion in their totality (except for Evangelium Vitae 90 and similar teachings, including Pope Francis' admonishing "rigid" Catholics to not promote pro-life because everybody already knows what the Church has to say about these issues). This is a false premise.

      As for the IVF claim: given the confusion of the terminology as it is actually used, I am not convinced that in Trump's statement is not simply understood to mean "medical fertility treatment," of which there are some that are permissible, according to church teaching. IVF proper is impermissible for two reasons, (1) life and (2) the separation of the conjugal act and the conception of human life. It seems to be possible to remove the first obstacle and the second one seems to be widely rejected even by catholics. In other words, we are back to the problem of changing the culture in a democratic system so we can gradually enact good law on the issue.

      Delete
    24. Apologies for the poor editing and the resulting typos and grammar errors.

      I need to form the habit of typing these comments out in a different program and editing them in that program first before copying and pasting (long) comments here.

      I am incapable of reliably editing comments of any length in a combox it would seem.

      Delete
    25. Felix

      I appreciate your detailed engagement.

      I just think it's a question of what Trump's public statements entail and the impression it gives.

      If you type Dr J Budziszewski in your "find in page" for this blog post, you'll find a comment of mine linking to Dr J Budziszewski's thoughts on the issue, one of the points he makes is that the words Trump and his campaign uses demotivate and cause scandal to those who genuinely are fighting for life.

      No one is opposing prudence and the need for being incremental ,but with his statements, Trump tends to be scandalous.

      As for the Mother Mary wish,
      Felix, it just seems to me that, Trump is conscious of the fact that he is opposing catholic causes and his deteriorating popularity with the conservative catholic base. Let's say there were two purposes playing on Trump's mind, the first is that a public wish could increase his support with conservative catholics and the second is a genuine homage to Mother Mary, These purposes aren't mutually exclusive and can both be purposes of the same act at the same time. The problem as I see it in Trump's case is that I think for him, these purposes don't just coexist but rather it seems that they are conditional upon each other. I wish you a happy birthday as a mark of my real respect for you but I respect you only in so far as you are beneficial to me in winning votes. The moment you become a liability, the respect goes. This is a major factor in my doubting of his sincerity.

      This can be expressed with a hypothetical scenario where in if Trump sensed he was losing traction with Protestant voters because of the wish, and if he were to be asked this question or pushed on it at a Protestant Convention, he would then immediately walk back those comments or downplay it as trying to win Catholics and not really as a homage to Mary.
      If it were convenient for him to walk back his statement , he would.

      His life history and egotism as Prof Feser has showed makes this the most probable alternative.

      Your example of Peter doesn't have any bearing over here, because Peter knew that he genuinely loved Jesus and in fact when Jesus predicted his denial, he vehemently protested it. His eventual betrayal was very much was a reflex.

      Trump on the hand very well knows that he would walk back his wish if it were to become politically inconvenient for him. Just like he has twisted and turned during the entire election cycle.

      Delete
    26. Your refutation of the analogy doesn't hold, for one thing Trump at such a high level of influence could very easily support state level restrictions and referendums. For example, he knows the abortion restrictions in Florida has a decent chance of winning and he could support it for that reason only. But regardless of the chances of the state, he knows his support for it will not be good for him nationally, and as such he doesn't even remain silent he chooses to criticise the six weeks ban instead. This is an example of him making his support/respect conditional on how it affects him. As such it becomes an example of "allowing babies to die because it benefits me electorally"

      Another reason the refutation fails is that it isn't really about what Trump can or can't do but about what he has already said. He says a six week ban is "too harsh" or "too restrictive" which doesn't even acknowledge the life of the baby.

      On IVF, I think most people have a clear idea of what IVF refers to and I don't think there's any general confusion on what is the the procedure. For one reason, it's a part of the name itself, In Vitro Fertilisation. I don't see how the problem in that it leads to the destruction life "can be removed" as an obstacle,
      Atleast Trump knows what it is and why it is opposed. He was against the Alabama court ruling. Secondly irrespective of where the public are on the issue, it is the obligation of good leaders to not cause scandal among voters by giving them the impression that something which is gravely wrong is in fact ok, that is what Trump is doing with IVF despite knowing the reasons why it is opposed, namely the destruction of life.

      As such, I think my analogy stands and vindicates my suspicion of his insincerity.

      Delete
    27. @ Norm

      My most proximate response (above 09/20 at 5:11 AM) to my comment here was addressed to Cosmic Cat. Regretfully, that response followed your response to me and it was unclear who I was addressing. So I have not yet responded to your two additional comments above. I hope to do so later this week and appreciate your explanation on 09/20 at 12:40 AM. It was not posted when I wrote my response to Cosmic Cat at 5:11 AM. It still leaves me with questions that I hope to follow up on.

      Delete
    28. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    29. Hi Michael Copas

      No worries at all. Very gracious of you to acknowledge the point.

      I apologise for any hostile tone in my response.

      At the end of the day, we all hope that Kamala Harris doesn't come into power.

      I look forward to a more congenial conversation moving forward.

      Delete
    30. @Norm

      I realize the cause for my own confusion when I responded to your initial interaction with me above. I assumed that "log cabin republicans" was just any other republican group. Only this morning did I find out what this was and I realize that you made your point, even if implicitly, mostly with premises that we share in your initial response. I hope to say more on this soon.

      Delete
    31. @Norm, thanks for the replies, I will have to take some time to read the linked article you pointed me to.
      I do not say you cannot suspect what you suspect about Trump's motive, and I do not say that reasonable people cannot disagree here. I do think there is not enough evidence to assert your conclusions as a fact and given that there is no good purpose it can serve at the moment, one should not publicly assert bad intentions.
      A few points.
      Is it likely Trump books were actually written by him as opposed to by a ghostwriter?
      Can one assume they are intended, at least partly, to be in line with the Trump brand/persona at the time?
      Is it the phrasing used in popular books strong evidence for the true sentiments of the author? Should one interpret this genre the same way as one would interpret an academic treatise on a philosophical subject?

      In any case, I think we managed to narrow the disagreement. Hopefully I can engage the rest of your answers as well as the article you linked later.

      Delete
    32. @Norm, I now have read the Budziszewski post. I basically agree with what is said there, thanks for providing the link.

      One more quick point about IVF. We agree on its moral value and consequently that careless praise for it is bad, and that forcing anyone to pay for IVF properly understood is morally unacceptable.
      Still I have observed quite a few people who use the term IVF as loosely as I suggested above. And it would fit Trump's communication style, shall we say, to use it that way and not in a precise and carefully defined way. Read as a considered policy that uses the term IVF properly it is horrific, no question.

      Thanks again for the fruitful discussion, any remaining points are beyond my time constraints for now.

      Delete
    33. Felix

      Even if it fits Trump's style to play fast and loose with words, it still may scandalises people or influence them in availing of the actual procedure without realising how gravely evil it is.

      I thank you for the fruitful discussion as well.

      Delete
    34. Felix,

      Thanks for your comments in this thread. They are insightful.

      Delete
  26. Among other things, Trumps reflects the ever-changing "values" of societies. Therefore, an ideology like Conservatism, which is purely socially determined, rather than permitting society to be determined by universal natural law (Burke, Kirk, Scruton), is helpless in the face of characters like Trump. The problem is Conservatism, not Trump. He just found Conservatism as I've just described, and jumped at the opportunity. This "opportunity" was around for a couple of centuries before him, and will persist for a while after he's gone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Looks like Biff from Back to the Future Pt. 2 in that magazine cover.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A couple of points that I think will further nuance the discussion in the post. The first is regarding Trump's political alliance with RFK. This is one among three extremely important political alliances recently. The other two are Elon Musk and Tulsi Gabbard. It is important to realize the possible results of these alliances for a Trump administration.

    Musk would audit the efficiency of the federal government and would be brilliant at this. RFK would be handling health issues associated with vaccines and toxins in foods. This is the issue he cares about most and I think he would be wonderful for this as well. Although neither Trump nor Tulsi Gabbard have stated what specific role she might play in a Trump administration, she might serve as secretary of state and I think she would be wonderful for that position.

    The point relevant to this post is that the placement of Musk and Gabbard in these positions would be perfectly acceptable for someone who is pro life to support regardless of Musk or Gabbard's positions on abortion. Every person in your administration need not be prolife and you need not limit your political alliances to those who share your commitments on all (or even the most important) issues.

    From my knowledge of RFK Jr's potential role, it would not negatively affect the pro life cause either despite his position. These are important prudential points that require some knowledge of the role of cabinet members and how the government functions. Factoring in these consideration in the case of Gabbard pours cold water on the suggestion that such appointments could provide a basis for opposing Trump when the position of these figures in relation to the pro-life issues will have no bearing on their work for the administration.

    That is here the crucial important question: would the appointment of these figures in the positions suggested above adversely affect the cause of life. The answer regarding Gabbard is no and I believe that the same is true regarding RFK, although I am open to persuasion.

    Regarding why Trump admires these figures: I think he admires both their intelligence and courage and, in the case of Musk, his enormous success. Those, it seems to me, are things to be admired by all of us. I think that such appointments would be brilliant and would be excellent for any President as long as such appointments did not harm the cause of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tulsi Gabbard as Sec. of State! Are u serious? She needs to just keep surfing and wearing her bikini. She looks great in it.

      Delete
    2. I can see you are committed to deeply reflective comments that all here will take seriously. Perhaps you don't share your name because you are concerned that the praise poured on such insightful comments would tempt your humility? If your comments were crude and unintelligent, I would understand why you didn't share your name out of sheer embarrassment. However, with such keen insight, I am sure that your motivation must be to avoid the effusive praise that would result from being identified as the author of such penetrating comments.

      Delete
    3. Dr. Feser,
      I appreciate the fact that you allow for some levity in comments.

      Delete
  29. Regarding Trump and winning: I think that the crucial reason that so many people of good will appreciate Trump is that his winning mindset is now being set against what I regard as the most pernicious internal enemy America has ever faced. That enemy might be called "the woke mind virus" (as Musk has called it) or simply "Wokeism." If that mindset were not decisively defeated, I don't doubt that Christians would face increasing persecutions and abortions would not only become more prevalent, they would be celebrated as something good.

    President Trump has put in place justices that overturned Roe and sent it back to the states and Trump has said he agrees with their judgement. That judgement has been decided with the help of quite a few practicing Catholic jurists. His own position is not consistently pro-life, but he is not only closer to a consistently pro life position, he is open to consistently pro life positions being enshrined into law at the state level. He doesn't want this done at the federal level and this seems to be for two reasons. First, he doesn't hold a consistently pro-life stance. Second, he has noticed that even conservative states have not done this when it has gone to the ballot. This makes him think that he would be placing a federal law in place that has very little public support. It is regrettable that it has very little public support, but that is certainly not Trump's fault and it is not surprising that he would take into consideration such factors.

    This suggests to me that Catholics have alot more work to do in communicating the rationale behind the pro-life position. I think that this has to be done in terms of making the case for natural law in the public sphere while pressing those that are not pro life to define murder and to answer the question of whether murder or anything else are everywhere and always wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "The trouble is that Trump’s egotism and obsessive desire to “win” seem more fundamental to his character than these virtues, and can distort or even overwhelm them – so much so that he at least approximates a Hobbesian agent. And this accounts for the words and actions that have made him such a controversial figure."

    What this thesis doesn't account for is why so many people of good will seem to be attracted to Trump. Why is that? I was a college classmate with Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and she is a good woman married to a faithful Catholic and she greatly admires President Trump as can be seen from the town hall she just did with him. Why do so many around him say that he is so regularly concerned about others even more than himself? Hannity recently said in an interview that Trump was extremely concerned about his golf partner in the wake of the recent assassination attempt and Hannity and others have testified that he is consistently concerned about the well being of others. Piers Morgan talked about how at a low point in his career, Trump contacted him to see how he was doing. Tucker Carlsen stated at the Republican convention that Trump went out of his way to check on he and his wife when their home was surrounded by rioters. How does any of this fit with the egomaniac thesis? I submit that it simply doesn't and that there is more to Trump than the underlying egomaniac thesis allows. Along with this point, it is important to point out that you can never demonstrate empirically or philosophically a substrate to someone's character. We have access to someone's acts and can assess those over time as reflecting their character, but we have to be constantly mindful that people can grow and change (Would anyone else like someone to dig up what they were doing in the 1990s and then write a post about it to reflect what we should think of them today?).

    The points about those who say that Trump is consistently thinking about the well being of others are all comments that were made by those around him in the past few months. It seems to me that this more recent data should inform how we assess Trump as a person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What this thesis doesn't account for is why so many people of good will seem to be attracted to Trump."

      What your thesis doesn't take into account is why so many people of good will seem to be repelled by Trump.

      Delete
    2. Oh that's easy. He's brash and can be a bully. The question is not whether he has certain faults (and virtues) that are enumerated by Feser. The question is whether there is a substrate to his character that dominates all else.

      It is not unreasonable to suggest that he is egotistical. My concern is the suggestion that Trump would alter any and everything to assuage his own ego. That is the import of the claim that egoism determines all else. While one can garner support for the case that he is egotistical, God alone knows the fundamental orientation of his character. In this case, for reasons I have given there is plenty of room for doubt that Trump cares ultimately only about himself (the import of the charge that egoism determines all that he does). That room for doubt should prompt both Christian charity and sound philosophy to avoid suggesting that we can determine that the substrate of his character which determines all he does is egoism.

      Delete
    3. Hello Michael,

      It’s certainly true that he could and might change as a person. But I’m not convinced that the things you refer to actually mark a change. That’s not because he has not shown genuine kindnesses to others recently, but rather because I don’t know that that’s anything new. As far as I can tell, he has always been that way. And the thing is, that is by no means incompatible with egotism. To show genuine kindness toward others does not entail that one does not regard oneself as of greater value than them, and it does not entail that one will not also do ruthless things to others if they get in the way of promoting one’s own greatness.

      Someone might respond: “Maybe, but we can’t read Trump’s heart.” The problem with this response, though, is that I’m not telling people to try to read Trump’s heart. I’m telling them to read his actual words and actions, like the ones I cite in the article. And those explicitly evince both certain acts of kindness and breathtaking egotism and cruelty.

      Also, we can’t just look at private acts but public ones too. And – to take just one example – moving from pro-life language to explicitly advocating for keeping abortion legal even past six weeks, even at the state level, hardly marks a moral advance. It marks instead a moral regression, IF Trump really was ever sincerely pro-life in the first place (which I don’t think there is good reason to believe).

      Delete
    4. "I’m not telling people to try to read Trump’s heart. I’m telling them to read his actual words and actions"

      If you were simply suggesting that we recognize that bad actions and habits are bad and that good actions and habits are good, then no problem. However you are doing more than that in multiple places.

      First, you have suggested that the good action of wishing Mary a Happy Birthday stems from a bad intention. However, you don't have access to his intentions apart from what he communicates through his acts and words. There is nothing surrounding the act or words of the Mary tweet that should cause us to read it as insincere.

      Second, you are arguing for what I have called a fundamental substrate to his character that determines all else. To do this is to argue that certain aspects of his character which are faults or vices are determining others. Practically this entails that even good acts are seen as acts of egoism. Here again, the acts and habits are not being assessed; there is instead a judgement about his most fundamental intentions or the most fundamental disposition that orients his acts. This is, again, to judge something you don't have access to.

      Regarding whether Trump has changed: Would Trump have been willing to die for his country 30 years ago? Would he have recognized God's hand in saving him from a bullet as he did at the National Convention? If my bad habits from the 90s (or yours) were dug up, would there be faults that still remain? If there were, would that mean that I (or you) were "fundamentally the same" in terms of character? Of course not.

      While the changes most relevant to the topic at hand are bad changes, this does not mean that his previous openness to the principled pro life position was insincere. Here again that openness was a good act and it is being read as motivated by a bad intention. Once we think that we have a beat on someone's fundamental orientation, we can miss contrary evidence by reading positive acts in terms of our judgement of that fundamental orientation. That is my greatest concern with this approach.

      On the policies about abortion as moral regression: right. Clearly that is the case. It reflects bad judgement on the most important moral issue our country faces. My points on this are twofold: First, there is no need to add the charge of a previous insincerity to this already grievous error in judgement. Second, his most recent change can be read in light of the regretful fact that conservative states are voting against broader abortion bans. It has become clear that the principled position is held by a small minority in the Country. That is not entirely irrelevant information either objectively or to Trump.

      Objectively, as another commenter has noted, both St. Augustine and modern popes have stated that evils can be tolerated if greater evils would result form trying to prevent them. I don't think that this point applies here because I can't imagine a greater evil than the widespread killing of unborn children. Even if defending them resulted in the dissolution of our Country, it would be worth it.

      The problem is that arriving at this position requires some understanding of the moral law, inherent evils, greater and lesser goods, etc. As I noted in another comment, politicians in general lack the time for reflection (and interest in) the level of reflection to arrive at a principled position on all issues such that they have thought through all the implications and thought through them in relation to other issues. This does not mean they are insincere. It just means that they are not philosopher kings. Assessment of Trump's decisions on this issue need to take this into consideration.

      Delete
    5. "IF Trump really was ever sincerely pro-life in the first place (which I don’t think there is good reason to believe)."

      It seems to me that charity requires that good acts are read as sincere unless there are extremely strong reasons to doubt them. We shouldn't require evidence that good acts are sincere. Instead we take the good acts as evidence of goodness rather than reading them as motivated by a fundamental badness.

      Is there reason to doubt that Trump changed his early pro-choice position due to the experience he had with a friend who had a baby? I am aware of none. That experience affected him. However, he did not arrive at it through argumentation. He arrived at it through a poignant experience associated with someone he cares about. In other words, he did not arrive at the position philosophically and, for this reason, does not have the principles in place to sustain a principled position in the face of other vying factors that are influencing him (eg recent data showing how unpopular the principled position is).

      Another important point relevant to this is his relationship with Hannity. Hannity is a former Catholic who was rebuked on his show by a Catholic Priest for being out of step with Catholic teaching on contraception. Hannity became a Protestant very publicly stating that he was more welcome there. Hannity, who is a good friend of Trump, has no doubt influenced him on this point and this is regretable. However there is also a human element that makes these changes more understandable. In Trump's case, the head of the Catholic Church has publicly rebuked him when he was not even in the wrong and not even Catholic while providing little to no public correction of Biden who was in the wrong on precisely the issue of abortion and professes the Catholic Faith. In light of this, Trump has reason to have a bad taste in his mouth. Couple this with the fact that he is not a philosopher king and his unprincipled position on abortion is all but inevitable until Catholics do a better job making the case for the principled position in the public sphere.

      Delete
  31. On Political figures changing their positions. We should expect Trump and all political figures to remain relatively consistent in their positions. However, it is also extremely important to recognize the level of thought required in establishing a principled position on any issue whose implications in relation to other policies and issues are fully thought through. Regretfully, politicians today are not philosopher kings.

    This point is relevant in how we assess Trump's openness to consistently pro-life justices on the Supreme Court and in his administration in his first term and his being less open or even opposed to this in the second term. This opposition is clearly cause for concern and regretable. The important point relevant to this post, however, is that the change need not be read cynically (i.e. Trump just made the moves necessary to get support as a conservative and then flipped the script due to sheer convenience). Given the influence of his wife and the choices he made for the Supreme Court, he seemed open to the consistently pro life position even though he was not yet convinced of it. Now he is less open to it and firmly set against it. This latter move it not reasonable, but this need not mean that the former disposition was done for sheer convenience. He seemed open to considering a consistently pro life position even if not yet convinced of it. He changed his consistently pro choice position based on his experience with a friend who became a mother. The problem is that he cannot arrive at the consistently prolife position as easily through a poignant experience (e.g. seeing the fingers, toes, and nose of a baby through an ultrasound). He would have to do so through reason (i.e. philosophically) and (again regretfully) that is something that few politicians today are equipped to do.

    The solution: Edward Feser starts a political philosopher king academy.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Re: Catholic approach to Trump.

    I think that there are two very distinct approaches to Trump that are reflected in Cardinal Dolan and Pope Francis. Cardinal Dolan's approach was to befriend Trump and seek to influence his decisions for the good. Pope Francis' approach was to condemn Trump's decisions publicly (e.g. regarding the wall and the "building bridges" comment). With Trump in particular, Cardinal Dolan's approach was the correct one as it rightly read Trump as a person of good will who was open to influence. Pope Francis' corrections were not only misguided (as I can have a fence around my property, so a Nation can have a border wall), they wrongly read Trump as in need of rebuke rather than instruction.

    The thing that is particularly problematic about Pope Francis' approach is that he not only spent time publicly correcting the non-faults of Trump, he failed to give due public correction to the far more serious faults of Biden. This entire approach is backwards. Biden professes the Catholic Faith and he should act like it or be called to task publicly for his public discordance with that faith. Those who do not profess that faith but are not hostile to its conclusions should receive friendship and instruction. If they are rebuked when they merit the work of mercy called "intsructing the ignorant" , they will be hardened against it and understandably so.

    Pope Francis is of course not solely responsible for Trump newly hardened position, but I think that his approach to Trump harmed rather than helped the cause. More than this, it reflected a fundamental disorder in priorities and confusion about moral law. Such confusion has regretfully been repeated throughout his pontificate. This at least merits some consideration with regard to Trump's openness to public policy positions whose most prominent defenders are Catholics. Being publicly chastized by the Pope on issues where you are in the right while watching a subsequent Catholic President not duly rebuked for being in the wrong no doubt puts a sour tasted in one's mouth.

    "Let judgement begin with the house of God" (1 Peter 4:17).

    ReplyDelete
  33. As someone who was annoyed by some of the author's Trump tweets, I must say this piece is a very fair accounting of the man's character and his relationship to socially conservative aims.

    What is omitted - perhaps deliberately, as off-topic - is why one might still support him, other than as a least-bad option for social issues and a bulwark against the left. Trump's positions on immigration, trade, and (especially) military imperialism are of great importance. They run counter to an effective bipartisan consensus of many decades, they're why he was made into such a divisive figure (despite being a centrist), and they're why he's being shot at.

    I didn't support Trump in 2016 for reasons well explicated in this article. Since then, I have come to view his positions on the aforementioned issues, along with his demonstrated sincerity (of a sort), as outweighing his manifest flaws. It's all well and good to take a narrow focus at times, but in this case it does feel like neglecting the biggest part of the Trump story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Anon, I agree that those other issues are important too. The reason I have nevertheless focused on abortion, IVF, and the like is in part that those are intrinsically gravely evil actions that directly violate fundamental moral principle; in part because they are matters on which Trump has dramatically shifted his stance in ways that are of grave concern to Catholics and other social conservatives; and in part because it seemed to me that too few people on the conservative side were saying what needed to be said.

      With immigration, trade, war, and the like, we have, by contrast, matters that are more complicated because they involve various prudential considerations that affect how we apply the relevant moral principles. Also, Trump has not changed his familiar positions on these matters. That does not mean they are not important, only that addressing them seemed less urgent, and I would in any case have less to say about them that is not already being said by other people.

      Delete
  34. I think Andrew Sullivan sums it up well:

    https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-sane-washing-of-donald-trump-077?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=61371&post_id=148327186&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=3rh86v&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

    ReplyDelete
  35. In her just released memoir, Melania Trump defends her nude modeling and compares what she did to Michelangelo's statue of David. I am waiting to hear what Trump will say to his Religious Right supporters who used to talk about "family values."
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/19/melania-trump-defends-nude-modeling-work/75289304007/

    ReplyDelete
  36. Trump meets all of the hallmarks of a malignant narcissist. He is unfit to be president and I for one will never commit my vote to him. The Right has gotten in bed with him and destroyed the party. He should have long ago been rebuked and the page turned on his nonsense. Thank you for your honest assessment of the situation Ed. Despite the inevitable criticism you will receive, I agree with your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Anon. The Republican party will one day have to be reborn.

      Delete
  37. What a wonderful discussion by nearly all participants! It is an act of great charity when someone like Ed Feser undertakes to understand such a complicated person as Trump and explain him to us. We are faced with hard choices; Feser makes them easier ... and harder at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Janet Smith are you that ideal AI from The Good Place by NBC?

      Delete
    2. I think this entire blog is now AI because Dr Feser is presently engaged in something of cosmic importance.

      Delete
    3. She's the philosopher.

      Delete
  38. Other than bans, the main thing that the government could do to limit abortion is support the welfare state and economic egalitarian policies. Put simply, secular conservatives and libertarians are social darwinists who do not think people in low-skill blue collar jobs should have children. I'm not even sure if they think skilled plumbers and mechanics should have children. This is how they talk about the issue when religious conservatives are out of the room. Secular-cons view having a family as a luxury item open to a certain segment of the population, as determined by market forces. Having a low skill job is taken as proof that one is unfit to breed. Someone with more "merit" will naturally rise to a higher income job where family life becomes possible. Brick-layers and janitors and fry-cooks are not supposed to breed under this worldview. They don't get the benefits of a big welfare state, they don't get to join a union, they don't get a higher minimum wage, they don't get macro-economic policies to encourage wage growth or full employment, they don't get a progressive income tax. If a low-skill worker knocks up his gf, she is supposed to get an abortion. That is the secular-con worldview.

    The whole thing is a fraud perpetuated by billionaire GOP donors to guilt Christians into supporting a libertarian party that has a fundamentally atheistic worldview. The party nominating an amoral libertine who barely pretends to be a Christian but pays lip service to pro-life when it helps him is a feature, not a bug. In the past they merely nominated semi-moral squares who were Christian but still cared about protected their family's dynastic wealth more than any ethical concern (Bush, Romney, McCain).

    A few years ago Stephen Crowder was offered a $50 million contract over four years to work at the Daily Wire. Sports fans would recognize this as roughly what Connor McDavid, the greatest living hockey player, makes per year ($12m). That is the kind of money that is floating around on the right. The entire conservative media empire is a creation of these donors, it is not an organic creation of Christians interested in public affairs. GOP operatives know there is ~10% of the population that will vote Republican if you tell them they will go to hell if they vote for the Democrats. The function of the pro-life movement is to deliver these votes to the GOP so the GOP can enact libertarian economic policies that, in the long run, discourage family formation and encourage abortion. The conservative movement and even the Church itself is awash in dirty money from billionaire oligarchs who hate Christianity, America, freedom, and democracy, and cynically manipulate the faith in ways reminiscent of Hitler and Stalin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t really see how a welfare state prevents abortion. I feel like welfare the way it’s currently done discourages marriage and hard work. Plenty of blue collar people have families. It’s usually the rich libs who don’t have children by choice. I’m not sure what world you live in.

      I’m not saying there is no place for welfare. Maybe a limited amount of welfare run by the state and not the federal government for people with legitimate need could be beneficial, but the way it’s don’t now is just socialism-lite. We currently spend more of our federal budget (18%) on welfare than we do on military (13%).

      Delete
    2. What a wonderful opportunity for the other party, then -- just give up on supporting abortion as a right, nay, practically a moral good, and tons of Christians could return to their fold and support the welfare state. I personally know many Christians who would do so. But, they won't do it, because the evil is actually important to them.

      It's a bad time.

      Delete
    3. @other anon:

      The term "welfare state" is distinct from "welfare". The later usually just means one particular program, TANF (which replaced AFDC in the 90s) and maybe food stamps (SNAP) as well. These are means-tested public assistance programs programs for the poor. The "welfare state" includes universal social insurance programs that distribute benefits to all members of society, including those with jobs. A child allowance giving every family X dollars when they have another child is part of the "welfare state" even if middle class families receive checks. See this real world example https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/01/world/europe/italy-babies-family-benefits.html

      This kind of pro-family social democracy is not acceptable under the libertarian worldview of the GOP. To the extent we have similar policies in the US, its almost always the result of the Democrats taking the lead, with moderate Republicans making concessions. The GOP is not a European style Christian Democratic party, and historically, the closest thing the US has had to a European style Christian Democratic party was the pre-McGovern Democrats (maybe McGovern is too early to draw the line).

      There is data that supports the claim that most abortions, while elective, are influenced by economic rationales. Its not the whole story but its a big factor. https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2019/05/who-are-the-1-in-4-american-women-who-choose-abortion/

      I also alluded to "economic egalitarian" policies in my post that go outside the welfare state, like support for unions.

      Delete
  39. The choice between Trump and Harris is fraught. But context is important. Your vote doesn't put either individual in office. Rather it is part of an accumulation of votes, perhaps contributing to the victory of the winning candidate, perhaps contributing to the pile of votes won by the defeated candidate. In either case, your vote helps establish the legitimacy of the winner. Indeed, this is the fundamental purpose of your vote - for candidate X or candidate Y, it doesn't matter: your vote legitimizes the government. So a candidate being for the right things is irrelevant Indeed you could vote for the other guy and formally fulfill your civic duty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your civic duty (in voting) is to do your best for the polity by your vote. If you honestly believe candidate A is better for the polity than candidate B, voting for B is contrary to your duty.

      Rather it is part of an accumulation of votes, perhaps contributing to the victory of the winning candidate, perhaps contributing to the pile of votes won by the defeated candidate. In either case, your vote helps establish the legitimacy of the winner. Indeed, this is the fundamental purpose of your vote - for candidate X or candidate Y, it doesn't matter: your vote legitimizes the government.

      There are many layers of the good that are in play. Because this is a democratic republic, voting helps sustain the current governmental order. But not voting (say, in a case where you cannot morally vote for any candidate on the ticket) also might help this order in a different way (though it would require incredibly improbable circumstances). In general, voting for the winner makes you both morally and politically responsible for him as a leader, though in the specifically attenuated sense of responsibility of one voter out of many whose votes put him in office. Voting for the loser makes you morally responsible for the loser getting more votes - and thus more recognition as a legitimate possibility - than if you had not. Each of these have a great many downwind consequences that are part of your responsibility in being a voter.

      Voting as such doesn't "legitimize" the government in a direct sense, as is proven by the fact that our government is the legitimate government of our polity even though MANY eligible people did not vote. Even if 90% of the people refused to vote, the 10% voting could continue to elect office-holders and continue the system. It would take additional factors besides the 90% refusing to vote that would begin to unravel the system. That just shows that civic duty extends to much more than simply voting. Indeed, for those people who refuse to exercise a reasonable level of inquiry into the needs of the country, the powers of the government, and the differences of the candidates, their NOT voting is their civic duty, while they remain in that condition.

      Delete
  40. But the election was stolen. I mean, the evidence is all over the place, And what was most shameful about January the 6th was the way the media and the politicians dealt with it right after the damage done by BLM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no evidence of that. All of Trump's court cases challenging the results failed because of that.

      Delete
  41. Scattershot thoughts, in response to specific points:

    Trump is transforming the GOP into a second pro-choice and socially liberal party.

    That's true, but hardly new. The neoconservatives got a strong foothold in the GOP by the mid-80s, and it is well known that they were mainly liberals who got mugged by reality. They imported most of their former liberalism into the GOP. And the RINOs were out in force in the 90's and 2000s. Trump used to be a Democrat: without changing his positions, he is now FAR rightwards of today's Dem party because they went far leftwards.

    if a national abortion ban were passed by Congress, Trump would veto it.

    Arguably, this would be the correct stance to take: Either abortion law is a state matter, or it is ALREADY forbidden under the 14th amendment. But the latter position is not supported by the historical understanding of the 14th, so that's not the best reading of it. We SHOULD pass a pro-life amendment, and THEN abortion would be off limits for both federal and state laws.

    He also tells us about an athlete friend of his who had been betrayed by his manager but declined to take Trump’s advice to get revenge. Trump broke off the friendship over this, refusing to associate any further with a “loser,” “schmuck,” and “jerk” who would refuse to get even

    Trump's perspective on "winning" as everything and beating down his foes is understandable, but it is still dumb. True greatness is to turn your enemies into allies, and allies into true friends. Trump clearly misunderstands friendship and loyalty: he demands "loyalty" from others, but explicitly denies he owes loyalty to people when it hurts his other goals: that's not true friendship, it's merely association for utility, and it is idiotic to expect others to loyally benefit you when that harms them when your whole association is one based on utility rather than friendship.

    The Trumpification of conservatism...Trump’s bad example has also rubbed off on too many of his followers. Aping his predilection for bullshit ...Aping his aggressive boorishness, too many of them have become excessively bellicose and more interested in “own the libs” stunts than in serious and effective policy proposals.

    I don't think this is very correct in the sense that Trump is pushing conservatism down a bad path. First, Trump never was a spokesman for conservatism in any real sense: by winning the nomination for the GOP, he is certainly a kind of spokesman for the GOP (though even that is attenuated by the fact that he was a DEM until recently). But since he is NOT a political theory person, and he doesn't define himself by any political movement, he decidedly IS NOT generating anything long-lasting that will continue to be a Trumpian political movement. And the boors and Trump wanna-be's, they mostly weren't conservatives before so their being like Trump won't affect conservatism, except to the extent that some people erroneously imagine they represent conservatives.

    The answer to all of that is to get out there and correctly state what conservatism is and shed Trump's false positioning as if he were (ever) a conservative standard bearer.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Regarding Trump and winning: I think that the crucial reason that so many people of good will appreciate Trump is that his winning mindset is now being set against what I regard as the most pernicious internal enemy America has ever faced. That enemy might be called "the woke mind virus" (as Musk has called it) or simply "Wokeism."

    While wokism is indeed one of the most dangerous internal enemies we face, one must remember that America's true good is under attack by more than human agents: our real enemies are Principalities and Powers, (demons), and they are USING wokism as only ONE of their tools right now. They are using also hedonism, to undermine even the (former) virtues of Americans immune to wokism: e.g. sexual license, by which they break apart families, ruin masculine and feminine traits in the public's mind, and weaken parents' hold on children (so that they can be taken over in schools by wokism.) And undermining the churches, and effeminizing police and military forces, and ...

    About the Jan 6 issue: I despise Trump's methods to try to "fix" the voting problem after the fact, but I note a fundamental problem that is NOW clear: we have found - through court convictions - clear and certain cases of ballot frauds, in which it took months and years to settle the case. We now have clear and certain evidence that dead people and illegal aliens are registered to vote, and that voting officials either knew this or studiously tried to avoid knowing. And I have personally witnessed state or local officials abusing the voting system to help Dems, twice. Some of the abuse is so endemic that it is now protected by a whole system of officials who are trained to turn a blind eye. Many (especially woke) people believe that cheating in the vote system to prevent a Trump win is justifiable. Trump is a blowhard who spouts BS half the time, and his "I won by a landslide" is no more believable than most of his other BS. It is ALL TOO BELIEVABLE that voting abuses caused Trump to lose least one state that Biden took by a thin margin, where the proof could not be established in the short time needed before Jan 6, or where the proof was unavailable because of the endemic interferences up and down the chain of authorities, or where the proof is not in the votes cast, but in the illegal registrations. And the true scope of the problem is that if the Dems continue to brush all these things under the rug, we will become little more than a banana republic, and American faith in elections will erode to the point where there will be armed force used rather than accepting "election results".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yet every one of Trump's court cases, well after Jan 6, failed to find the irregularities that would have invalidated the elections in a single state.

      Delete
    2. "While wokism is indeed one of the most dangerous internal enemies we face, one must remember that America's true good is under attack by more than human agents: our real enemies are Principalities and Powers, (demons), and they are USING wokism as only ONE of their tools right now. They are using also hedonism, to undermine even the (former) virtues of Americans immune to wokism: e.g. sexual license, by which they break apart families, ruin masculine and feminine traits in the public's mind, and weaken parents' hold on children (so that they can be taken over in schools by wokism.) And undermining the churches, and effeminizing police and military forces, and ..."

      Well said.

      Delete
    3. Yes, I know. And what the court cases on OTHER (non-presidential) "irregularities" (fraud) have shown that there ARE such fraud problems, and that it can take a full YEAR OR TWO to prove. So, the fact that proof could not be established in 1 month is inconclusive to the thesis that fraud did not occur. The fact that the candidate has 1 month between the vote and the certification of the results by the state to Congress means that for those cases where proof simply takes more time, erroneous results will be locked in by that now-manifestly-insufficient time to prove.

      I believe that Trump would have been willing to claim fraud even if all of his advisors and all state systems had reported "we aren't hearing of any problems". As I said (and as Feser pointed out) Trump is a major user of BS.

      But what is vastly more likely is that there were many reports from local people that they noticed problems, and that in many cases those people could not get their observations registered in any way that would initiate honest and serious investigations. The fact that even if - in those uninvestigated cases - many such investigations would have concluded that "we understand why the observer reported what seemed to be a problem, but it turns out there was no ACTUAL mistake made", still it remains that (a) the fact that "many" apparent problems were not actual voting and counting mistakes doesn't mean ALL were not real mistakes, and (b) the fact that they could not get someone to take their observations seriously enough to be investigated undermines the reliability of the system, and thereby undermines FAITH in that system. We need a new Voting Rights Act that requires states to develop systems of registration of voters, casting of ballots, and counting of ballots, that is both transparent and provably reliable and resistant to fraud. The fact that many states and counties are strongly resistant to improving their methods on these standards is itself gravely disturbing as to faith in the system.

      Delete
    4. I think you'll find that the imperfections in the system work both ways for both parties across the country. Trump and his supporters spent a fortune on top legal staff to push this in courts and got nowhere. Biden won the election. Why are people still talking about this point?

      Delete
  43. This election is about who will give Catholics more of what is good, a more Catholic nation.
    The Harris government will greatly strengthen the anti-Catholic forces increasing their power to harm the Catholic Church and Catholics. Think Antony General Merrick B. Garland.
    Giving voters a reason not to vote against Harris is not doing the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe if you had actually read Feser's article, you'll see why Trump will also strengthen anti-Catholic forces and himself is an anti-Catholic force when it comes to the life issue.

      Delete
  44. So many Anonymous comments on this particular topic, my own excepted, because I have always posted as Anon.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This was probably the best, most objective and balanced critique of Trump I've ever read. I've literally been waiting years for you to do this, and I was not disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I've found it mildly persuasive, to say the least, that a nation, as long as it is outside Christendom, can't vote its way out of the dominion of Satan.

    Trump's slide on life issues points in that direction.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And for any Catholics hoping Vance might provide a bit a "balance" from a "believer" to counter the obviously incredulous Trump, de Vice-Presidential debate should have ended that. Vance supports every part of the US having abortion if the state so desires and supports the so-called fertility treatments condemned by the Church. The Pope was right to say both sides support abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It surprises me to think that Catholics like Michael Knowles are still going around saying that Trump was the "most pro-life president of my lifetime" and defending his pro-life credentials even after everything that has just transpired.

    He was the only person at the daily wire who refused to go against Trump in the primaries which was so cowardly, everyone else chose to endorse candidates against Trump including Matt Walsh amd Ben Shapiro but Michael just remained neutral when he knew that a catholic voice like his could have made a big difference.

    Even now, judging by his twitter feed he refuses to severely criticise Trump and only engages in offering corrections in the most mildest of tones sometimes even rather apologetically.

    Knowles has a lot of influence among catholic audiences, since Prof has been taking on people at Twitter, I suggest he directly tag Knowles and call out the gaslighting that Michael Knowles constantly engages in.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Trump and Vance will follow The Heritage Foundation’s guidelines such as Project 2025 as well as Trump’s Agenda 47, if Trump gets the White House again.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Trump is a serial liar and a constant grifting conman. He can never be trusted. He always goes back on his word or denies what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  51. A Harris victory is manifestly likely to lead to a permanent majority for the Democrats in the swing states (same as in California--secured by immigration, permissive voting laws, and fraud) and, consequently, the following permanent trends: more Catholics in jail (for their faith and witness); more children kidnapped, indoctrinated, and mutilated by the government; homeschooling more restricted (or outlawed); Catholic education and catechesis at all levels suppressed as "hate speech"; Roe v. Wade re-instated; the pro-life movement treated as domestic terrorism; and the conversation we are having on this website made illegal. Catholics in red states will not be exempt. Once the federal courts are transformed by leftist judges, all remaining constitutional protections will be stripped away. Charity, justice, and courage require that we take action to stop these things from happening. We have nowhere else to go. It is our duty to defend our country, our Constitution, our children, ourselves, and the liberties of our Church. That means voting for Trump. --Sean Cunningham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is a liar, a conman and a false Christian spreading a false Gospel among other disgusting things. Always was and still is.

      Delete
  52. Trump is a convicted felon and a grifting fraud. Trump is a multiple adulterer. If Trump cheated on his wives, how can he be trusted to protect our country? Who picked the documents Trump stole and hid, since Trump is too old and does not read? Also, he left abortion to the states and will do nothing more. There is no more reason to vote for him. He will turn on everyone if he wins or if his buddies on the Supreme Court give Trump the Throne, if he looses. Trump only wants the White House, to do his crazy evils and to avoid possible prison,if he looses. Remember, Trump will be worse this next time.

    ReplyDelete
  53. No, it does not mean to vote for Trump. Trump is a man and an idol. If you must vote, vote for Jesus Christ instead. Trust in no man.

    ReplyDelete