I feel obligated to add a note up front to this post to let the reader know that this is not an endorsement of any candidate. I think that's a personal choice that we all should make ourselves after prayerful consideration. I don't think that Christians "must" vote for one or the other. I agree with some of what each candidate says, and disagree with much of what they say. This post is simply a reflection of what I saw last night, and why I think we are where we are.
I write this as a person who cares much more for the “why” behind the issues than the issues themselves. I’ve said in the past that I’m not a “cause” guy. Some people get jazzed up about causes. Every week they have some new soapbox they want to stand on. That’s not me. Maybe I’m too skeptical/cynical (although I’d prefer to call it analytical). I’m interested to know why a cause exists in the first place–what are the underlying issues that we have to understand if we actually want to fix the thing we are passionate about?
The thing about the “why” is that it’s not nearly as exciting as the “cause” for most people. The cynic (analytic) in me would say that this is why we never seem to be able to solve our problems, no matter how excited we get about them! It’s easy to get people to a rally to protest police violence; it’s another thing altogether to figure out why that violence exists in the first place and come up with a plan to solve it. What is the reason for the violence? Why is there an underlying current of racism? Why are people in under-priviliged, minority communities angry? What do they feel that a person from a more affluent, white community might not ever feel? Those are difficult and complex questions that require thought, dedication, listening, and comraderie between people coming from different perspectives, but who desire the same outcome of healing.
Getting people excited about a cause, however, really only requires a couple of things. First, it requires a problem. It requires that something is wrong. It does not require that we can fully define what is wrong; it simply requires that we know, in our souls, that something is not the way it should be. Second, it requires a passionate leader. It does not require that the passionate person knows the solution; it simply requires that there is someone who will stand and declare, “this isn’t right”.
And that’s it. That’s all it requires.
Do those two things, and you can get people excited. You can motivate people to move. You can press them forward. And the good news is that people like that make things happen. Sometimes it’s not the right thing, but it’s something. That’s why “cause” people and “why” people need each other. “Cause" people get stuff done quickly; “why” people get things done the right way.
As I sat down to watch the debate last night, I found that I was much more nervous than I had anticipated. I’m not entirely sure why. I find myself in a difficult position–like most American Christians–of having to determine where I stand on two highly flawed candidates. I’m fascinated at the rise of both candidates.
Clinton, because I find it almost unconscionable that we would elect another Royal Family of Politics candidate–whether that’s the Bushes or the Clintons. How can it be that the United States of America, founded on the rejection of tyranny that stemmed from a dictatorial royal system, could end up being led by either a Bush or a Clinton for nearly my entire life. If Hillary Clinton gets elected, that means that from 1988, all the way until potentially 2024, we will have had a President with the last name of Clinton or Bush with the exception of our current president, Barack Obama. 28 out of 36 years, effectively led by the same two families. Clinton's politics aside, that blows my mind.
On the other hand, prior to last night’s debate, I found Trump’s rise to the candidacy to be almost as equally baffling, although less so than Clinton's. Trump caught the Republican establishment as they were setting the cruise control–probably to destination Jeb Bush, they themselves getting ready to coronate their own Royal Family–but even if they expected a different outcome, it was pretty much same old same old. Nothing exciting to see here. We’ll pick a guy, hire the focus groups, say the things we need to say, reach out to the proper voting blocs, and call it a day. It will be a “referendum”.
What they didn’t anticipate was a) that people felt like the problem was bigger than they did and b) a candidate that was passionate about what he was saying, even if some of what he said was ludicrous. And that candidate was Donald Trump.
A lot of the debate last night was difficult to watch. Clinton because she was so painfully aware of the “right things to say”, so political in her approach, smugly doing a “wink wink nudge nudge” to all of the real intellectuals who were laughing with her at the dolt on the stage. Trump because he played right into the stereotype, lock, stock, and barrel (Gun reference intended).
That’s not to say that Trump is actually dumb. That’s part of what is fascinating. There are a lot of people who think he’s dumb, which is why they mock him and are constantly shocked that he won’t go away. But much of what he says has a kernel of truth, even if it’s said in such a blundered way that it’s difficult to see what’s underneath. He clearly isn’t good at articulating his ideas in the moment. He clearly is not a practiced orator. He clearly has little to no concern about how his comments come across, even if he doesn’t mean them, and if he does mean them, that is an even bigger problem. But he has something that Clinton doesn’t have, and I saw it last night for the first time, and it’s the reason this race is in a dead heat when all the pundits and watchers and smart people of the world say that Clinton should be winning handidly. What is it?
Passion.
I recalled a story as I was watching the debate about when Benjamin Franklin (if I remember correctly) went to go listen to George Whitfield, the fiery Methodist preacher. Franklin was not a religious man, and he was once asked why he went to go listen to George Whitfield when he didn’t believe much or anything about what he was saying. Franklin replied, “I may not believe it, but he does."
How do you rally people to a cause?
There must be a problem, even if it can’t be fully defined.
There must be a passionate leader, even if he doesn’t have all the answers.
You say, that’s crazy.
I say, that’s Trump.
Of course, the pundits today will say that Clinton won, and Trump dug his own grave. Clinton’s grasp on the “facts” was better. Clinton had more poise. Clinton hasn’t said the same amount of bone-headed things. All of that may be true. I’m just not sure this election is about any of those things.
I think this election is about people looking at our country and saying, “something is wrong”, and a candidate who is saying, “I’m going to fix it.” Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. But as he reminded the audience last night over and over again, “She (Clinton) has already had her chance.”
That might be enough of an argument to win.
(And while we’re talking about passion–there was a candidate who would have soundly defeated Trump, in my view, and that was Bernie Sanders. Had Bernie Sanders been on the top of the ticket, he would be the next president. Why? Because the only way to fight passion is with passion–and Bernie had it.)