Immorality
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? – Matthew 16:26 KJV
I had a long conversation with a friend of mine, discussing the morality of the Trump Administration. I took what I thought was a “pure” view (who would have thought “pure” was in my vocabulary) that Donald Trump was an immoral man, creating an immoral time, and never had the moral standing to be President of the United States. My friend disagreed.
She started by giving Mr. Trump a “pass” on all personal immoral behavior prior to being President. Quoting scripture, Matthew 7:1, “judge not, that ye be not judged,” she stated that judgment is between Mr. Trump and the Lord; and made the argument that we should evaluate the President only through his current acts, not by his past behavior. More than that, the personal morality of the President, even now, should not be an issue: it is only the benefits he brings to the nation that we should examine.
Democrats aren’t “pure” on this issue either. Bill Clinton was (and is) a man of questionable personal morality (the Epstein scandal might involve the former President as well.) He was impeached for having an affair with a twenty-one year old intern literally in the Oval Office, in our current #METOO era he makes Senator Al Franken’s transgressions seem trivial. Yet many Democrats supported Clinton, taking the stand that his personal morality was not a political issue. Democrats took several steps down a slippery slope that we are still struggling to climb today. (see an earlier essay on Trump World – Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned)
The argument about Trump’s past immorality seemed insoluble, so we switched the conversation to his current actions. I brought two issues to the table that I thought were clearly immoral: the separation of children from their parents at the border, and the President’s clear preference for world leaders who are brutal dictators. We argued back and forth about child separation. The issue was: were the migrants actions, crossing the border without permission and “risking” their children, “immoral” acts that “cancelled” out the immorality of the government. In fact, did the government have a “moral duty” to protect those children.
Not surprisingly, I didn’t buy that argument. Many of the migrant parents are faced with an awful choice; stay where they are and risk the lives of their children from the gangs and crime, or take almost equal risks to travel to the United States and try to find a safer life. I failed to see how this could be a choice in morality; it must ultimately be moral to protect your child. But the actions of the government, essentially kidnapping children from the parents they hold in custody, removing them far away and permanently separating some; this can be nothing but immoral.
And as far as the President’s “friends” from Mohammad bin Salman, to Kim Jong Un, to Vladimir Putin: all have jailed, tortured and murdered to maintain their power. Mr. Trump has demonstrated an affinity for them, in my view a disturbing admiration for their ability to control their citizenry. He has abandoned a “moral” view of American foreign policy, instead making deals with dictators to the detriment of their own people. My friend’s argument, that the President’s friendships are to the benefit of the United States and therefore are good for us, is reminiscent of Henry Kissinger’s Real Politik theory of foreign diplomacy. It views diplomacy as a “zero sum” game, with the United States either winning or losing. Trump, Kissinger, and my friend, would argue that it is an amoral stand, but that benefits to America are clearly moral. We have to be winning.
So I asked a final question: if we find that Mr. Trump is in fact compromised by the Russians, either financially or otherwise, and that he cooperated with them to get elected, can we finally determine he is unacceptable?
My friend refused to answer the hypothetical. She demanded to “wait for the facts” before drawing any conclusion.
My concern: in our current climate, where “truth” is as malleable as a Facebook post; will we ever be able to find a consensus on “the facts.” I worry that we will be left with cries of “fake news” that leave us divided, not in a moral quandary, but in a struggle of conflicting views of the truth that cannot be resolved.
After the revelation of audio tapes definitively showing his guilt, Richard Nixon resigned from office. 29% of Americans believed he should remain in office. In our current age of moral convenience and differing facts where 69% of Christian Evangelicals still support the President, how many Americans would choose not to believe “the facts,” regardless of what they concluded?
Trump said it himself: he could shoot a man in cold blood in Times Square, & he’d be acquitted. At least by 39% of the country. As one who would define himself as a “Christian Evangelical” (though it almost certainly doesn’t mean the same thing to me as it does to you, or to many people), I find the man utterly repugnant, morally. What is also striking is that he seems to have no sense of penitence, no NEED for forgiveness. Every Christian Evangelical I know is profoundly aware of their own sins, & grateful for grace & mercy. Mr. Trump feels no need for forgiveness (he has said so repeatedly), & couldn’t explain the concept of grace that every 14 year old confirmand should be able to explain. Other than his fairly recently adopted position on abortion (which, like all of his “policies”, is a matter of whim & not conviction), I can’t imagine why any Christian could possibly find this person to be a moral man. Yet there is literally nothing he can do, nothing he can say, no revelation too salacious, no action so shocking, that his hard core followers (Evangelicals or otherwise) will not overlook it. I do not get it.