Trump victory means ‘Pope Francis moment’ has arrived

Trump victory means ‘Pope Francis moment’ has arrived

[Now that Trump is in (at least as the Republican presidential candidate), the liberal knives (including Catholic ones) are coming out – such as this one from the Knights of Columbus subsidized Crux by an “Associate Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University” who implies that Bernie Sanders is Pope Francis’ favorite (and without mentioning the former’s speech at a recent Vatican conference – with the latter’s invitation)]

By Charles Camosy
Special to Crux May 4, 2016

Trump victory means ‘Pope Francis moment’ has arrived

Well, it’s happened.

Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States, acknowledged as such by the Republican National Committee. After winning Indiana, it’s impossible to see how he does not get well beyond the 1237 delegates necessary for a first ballot victory at the Republican convention in Cleveland this summer. (This doesn’t even take into consideration many hundreds of unbound delegates likely to go his way.)

Even if his enemies somehow manage to out-maneuver Trump at the convention by changing the rules, a massive proportion of voters who currently identify as Republicans would leave the party and support what would likely be Trump’s run as an Independent.

Trump has the Republican leadership forked, and slowly realizing their party is coming apart at the seams.

But only in our lazy, binary political imagination is this automatically good news for Democrats — a party with their lowest legislative numbers since the Hoover administration, and only 30 percent of the electorate.

The fact that many Democrats are bolting their own party for Trump—and that Bernie Sanders will push for a contested convention—are the latest indications the Democratic coalition is also on its last legs.

The 2016 election cycle, as disruptive as it has been, has merely accelerated the disintegration of our outdated political categories and assumptions. Millions have already been looking around for a radically different way of imagining politics. Many millions more will be doing so now that Trump is more or less officially the Republican nominee.

The question at this point is what the new political realignment will look like.

As the coveted demographic of the future, millennials will have a disproportionate impact on where our political realignment ends up. Those still fighting the left/right wars of the 1970s are using an outdated model. The future belongs to a new generation which refuses to identify as Democrats or Republicans.

And this future is set up nicely to be America’s “Pope Francis moment.”

U.S. Catholics have known for some time that our moral theology and social teaching cannot be made to fit the liberal/conservative binary of the culture wars. But perhaps for the first time ever, our political culture now has an opening for someone like Pope Francis to be heard as a genuine alternative.

Here is a counter-culturally humble man who names himself first as a sinner. Here is someone who espouses and lives out a “magenta” ethic (neither red nor blue) which is at once deeply rooted in ancient traditions and principles, but also nimble enough to respond to the unique questions of our day.

It is no wonder Francis is so beloved by young people. Consider this:

Like millennials, Pope Francis is centrally concerned with ecology and climate change.

Like millennials (and especially Latinos), Pope Francis has a serious problem with abortion.

Like millennials, Pope Francis puts welcoming immigrants and refugees ahead of border security and nationalism.

Like millennials, Pope Francis believes in actually living out one’s values in attempting to bring about change, not simply relying on big, distant, and slow government institutions to do the work for you.

Like millennials, Pope Francis has a special concern for the very high rates of unemployment among young people.

Perhaps most important of all is Pope Francis’ insistence on a culture of genuine encounter—a culture which speaks to millennials, who at once refuse to judge people using dismissible boxes or categories, but find themselves increasingly disconnected from genuine relationships.

Pope Francis’ popularity, however, goes well beyond young people. His visit to the US generated massive goodwill across the demographic, political, and theological spectrum.

He is perhaps the only public figure around who manages to take strong stances on the most controversial issues of our day while remaining genuinely beloved by young and old, rich and poor, conservative and liberal, men and women, secular and religious.

Perhaps it is providential that Pope Francis’ counter-cultural vision had the requisite time to seep into our public consciousness in advance of the most disruptive election cycle in nearly 60 years. With Pope Francis, we have been hit over the head with a genuine alternative—an alternative, it is worth noting, who has approval ratings a whopping 35 points higher than Donald Trump.

Oh yes, back to Trump. Has our political reality sunk in yet? A bloviating, pro-torture, misogynist billionaire with 35 percent approval ratings—who admits his campaign is merely a strategic show—is set to become the Republican party’s nominee for president.

Or, more precisely, he is about to become the nominee of the party formerly known as Republican.

Will you be one of the millions of Americans looking through the pieces of our disintegrating political culture for a radically different vision?

Boy, have I got a vision for you.

Get AQ Email Updates

11 comments on “Trump victory means ‘Pope Francis moment’ has arrived

  1. I’m so disgusted by this man. I’m 60/40 on pulling the lever.

  2. I’ve always been a Trump supporter. I don’t agree obviously with some things, but he’s the best IMO.
    One thing is for sure, even if I wasn’t a Trump supporter Marxist, NWO and phony Catholics and groups like Jorge Bergoglio, Crux and others would most likely draw me to him.

  3. The article is wrong in its support for Pope Francis, and its presumption that the grass roots support him. Pope Francis is propped up by the media and is a tool of world globalization and the global order. On the other hand, this article is saying that prople are feed up with the way things are. And the fact that the heretical pro-Zionist evangelical sects were controlling the Republican party and is losing its control is worth noting. And I find that refreshing. Catholicism is a faith of Reason, not hysteria and fanaticism; which is what the Evangelicals are. The Evangelicals are SPIRITUAL demagogues. While Trump has been viewed by some as a demogogue, if true. Ay least he keeps it only on a political level. The Evangelicals are more radical. The Evangelicals try to legislate and promulgate laws and policies based on their hysterical and heretical end of days Zionist worldview. Unlike Trump, George W Bush has said that God told him to invade Iraq. This evangelical is a scary man.And I don’t want this sect running this countru and the world.

  4. I too am a bit leery of “the Donald” as a man of high moral integrity, but two utterances of his have me wondering if he just might be what we need in a chief executive. To wit: that the problem with Islamic terrorism is Islam (hence his call to ban Muslim immigration to the U.S.) and his statement that if abortion were illegal, the woman attempted to murder her child should be prosecuted. These two obvious truths proclaimed in our PC world of rhetoric shine like lightening bolts in the darkness. Like Putin of Russia (another dubious character who speaks the truth), maybe old white men still have something to teach our out-of-control illiberal world!

  5. Captain Kirk: It’s not from The Onion?
    Mister Spock! The implosion of the traditional left-right binary political dialectic in postmodern American politics…analyze using your usual superior Vulcan logic!

    Spock: Fascinating, Captain. I take it that you are not feeling the Bern.
    On the bright side, when the U.S. becomes a Third World socialist banana republic dictatorship drowning in soaring taxes, mountains of debt to China, and Big Government largesse, we will be spared from the usual Whig jargon and rhetoric about the Enlightenment, the ideology of progress, and Manifest Destiny.

    Kirk: Won’t that be a problem for Protestants and card-carrying Classical Liberals, innocent of Straussian esoteric double truth theories? I mean, of the hard-core, closet Nietzschean variety among the inside-the-beltway white wine and Brie reception cabals and Foggy Bottom set.

    Spock: Indeed, it will, Captain. But since History has been replaced with Social Studies and its multiculturalist and Frankfurt School matrices, few will be literate enough to notice or have sufficient historical knowledge for an educated or informed comparison.

    Reverend Neuhaus: Forgive me for interrupting again as aggressive and pushy professional Protestant converts sometimes do, but I would like to say something about the Naked Public Square in modernity….

    TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2016

    Today’s Political Developments Demand Rational Response, Not Knee-Jerk Rancor

    First, a little legal-talk to stave off the salivating lawyers.. Faithful Catholics of MD/DC Inc is not – repeat, NOT – a “c3” corporation, In fact, we’re not a “501c” anything! That means we can make all the political statements we want! Now that this is out of the way, let’s continue.

    As most of you know, I was hoping that Ted Cruz would be the GOP nominee for US President. I voted for him in the MD primary. However, I just got the news that after the Indiana primary, Cruz has decided to drop out of the race. That means that Donald Trump is the nominee, assuming that all RINO attempts to submarine his campaign come to naught. On the Democrat side, we see that Hillary is beating Bernie quite handily. So barring very unusual occurrences, we’ll be seeing a Trump vs Clinton race this coming November.

    Quite honestly, I find Trump to be an enigma. Some of his policy statements have been rather contradictory. Some of his conduct has, in my opinion, not been worthy of one aspiring to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America.

    Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has not been enigmatic in the least. Her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stances are out there for everyone to see. We know for a fact what kind of Supreme Court justices she’ll nominate if she wins the White House. We know what kind of mess her foreign policy will be, just by the debacle that was her performance as Secretary of State. Need I remind one and all of the four Americans that she knowingly let die in Benghazi on her watch? Need we reminders of the security breaches posed by her reckless handing of servers and emails?

    I recite all this because I’m seeing signs of irrational rage and anger against Trump’s nomination from good Christians and pro-life activists. Their common mantra seems to be “anyone but Trump”, as they threaten to stay home on election day or to write in some other person on their presidential ballot. That is the kind of thinking and acting that garnered for this country eight years of the worst presidency to date; disdaining both McCain and Romney, good Christians (acting on emotion versus reason) simply abdicated their civic duties and let Obama waltz into the White House.

    One meme captured the lack of logic perfectly. I wished I saved it; if I see it again, I’ll post it. Anyway, it said (paraphrased), “if Trump wins the nomination, Hillary wins the White House so I won’t vote in November”. This statement is an example of a logical fallacy known as a self-fulfilling prophesy, for if good people do indeed not effectively vote against Hillary, she will indeed win the White House. Note carefully. In that case, she’d win not because Trump was the nominee but because otherwise-rational people used that as an excuse not to vote for the one candidate who could deny her the White House.

    If we’re serious about at least slowing down the oncoming train wreck of our cultural degradation, we will have to vote for Trump, for that is the only effective way to vote against Hillary. And please – none of this write-in crap. You might feel better while you’re doing it, but elections are not about how we feel. We need to turn our emotions off and force our intellect and reason to have dominance over our feelings and “gut reactions”.

    I’ve written before quite extensively on voting and the Catholic Principle of Double Effect; I need not rehash it here, but instead link to the anthology of posts. Yes, the act of voting for Trump needs to be subject to this scrutiny, but so do the acts of: not voting at all, or, the act of voting “third-party” or “write-in” must be subject to the same scrutiny.

    Let us ask Our Lord’s blessing and direction for us.

  7. Or lesser evil principle. There is a moral burden and duty to vote against the pro-abortion, socialist Democrat candidate. It is certain that serious and grave evils will follow from another pro-abortion, gender-bending, tyrannical socialist regime. You can kiss civilization goodbye if that happens. When that is contrasted with someone who has a tendency for popping off on Twitter with tasteless and vulgar comments, which is the greater evil? Which is more offensive, using U.S. tax dollars to murder unborn children or posting a silly, adolescent, chauvinist comment about Megyn Kelly?

    It’s the former, for any Protestants who might have trouble reasoning. Or any liberal Catholics of the Vatican era who missed Ethics 101. The systematic murder of unborn children is more evil than the crass Twitter cracks of a vulgarian narcissist bully with Tourette’s, thin skin, and impulse control issues. Rash judgment, bad taste, and a potty mouth may be character flaws, but they are far below abortion on demand, Frankfurt School social engineering, attacks on religious liberty, and the destruction of American culture by radical liberal Supreme Court appointments.

    The lesser evil principle applies to this situation.

  8. When the Big-O first announced his POTUS nominee, I thought to myself that enough Republicans in the Senate (including the leadership) would roll over and approve him before their convention in July, but I dismissed that thought after the leadership affirmed their position of no consideration during this election year; now I am having second thoughts of that in view of …

    [ABT (Anyone But Trump)] Conservatives Call for Confirmation of Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee Garland

    NBC News – MAY 4 2016

    Hours after Donald Trump became the likely nominee, the conservative website RedState wrote that the Senate should confirm President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

    The rationale is that Trump can’t win a general election against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and that Garland is the best scenario coming from a Democrat.

    “Republicans must know that there is absolutely no chance that we will win the White House in 2016 now. They must also know that we are likely to lose the Senate as well. So the choices, essentially, are to confirm Garland and have another bite at the apple in a decade, or watch as President Clinton nominates someone who is radically more leftist and 10-15 years younger, and we are in no position to stop it,” Leon Wolf wrote on RedState.

    The website calls Garland, who Republican leaders in the Senate vow to block his confirmation, “not a great choice, but … not a terrible one.”

    Now that it’s clear that Trump will be the Republican nominee, his organization is cutting its losses and looking to make the best of what they say is a bad situation.

    “The calculus has changed — confirm Merrick Garland before it is too late,” Wolf wrote.

  9. With the exceptions of Cal Coolidge and (occasional honorable bursts from) Ronald Reagan, the GOP has been a disaster since the get-go. That some of its hidebound lunatic fringe still hopes for vindication through sheer treachery is hardly a surprise.

    PS: Since Ike could have been the nominee of either party and simply tossed a coin to help him make up his mind, I’ve always considered him as a philosophical member of neither party.

  10. I don’t see the lesser of evils principle applying here, except in the imaginary caricature we’ve received from The Donald and his promoters. He be smooth. About the only thing he might have to deliver on is enforcing the southern border, and I’ll agree that that’s probably worth risking a vote. However, as for socialism, he’s for single-payer health; as for abortion, he praises PP; as for queerdom, he chastises NC for ruling that men must use the men’s room. He has no moral compass, and won the primary by denigrating and vilifying his opponents. The Trump-bots and the media played along, as Drudge/Breitbart/FOX smiled, and the MSM won’t admit substantive discussions. He is an abhorrent, disgusting man.

    I haven’t found any convincing evidence that he will do anything good, but only that he’ll bring his nasty two-faced narcissist MO to the White House. Barack-II, anyone? Hence, the “lesser of evils” devolves to “the devil you know vs the devil you don’t.” I’ll probably vote for DT just to vote down HRC, for she is truly demonic.

    The DC post above has highlighted “If we’re serious about at least slowing down the oncoming train wreck of our cultural degradation, we will have to vote for Trump, ” I don’t see that as likely at all. That’s been the message from the RNC for 20+ years, and it’s brought us to where we are today. On the positive side, this time the RNC didn’t pick DT.

    If DT takes us down — pick your odds — will I be able to live with voting for him? And if HRC wins, can I live with not having tried to oust her? Roll the dice — there’s nothing to lose, right?

  11. There is a cultural dimension to the vulgar comments and bullying, reflective of the New York tabloids and among a certain class (not unfamiliar to the Howard Stern Show or some television programming in the last twenty years or so), that the pundits have missed probing, preferring to divert Ted Cruz’s “New York values” criticism into a separate narrative. Someone could write an entire book on vulgarity, bullying, philandering, and misogyny in modern culture. Why they have ignored that one would need to consult psychiatrists or psychologists for possible explanations. But they ignored this with respect to Bill Clinton as well. Did Hillary raise her voice when Monica Lewinsky was being gaslighted by the Clintonistas and the media as a psycho stalker? Or did she participate in meetings to execute that strategy? Likewise with Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey.

    Rudeness and blunt or crass vulgar comments are not exactly rare in the tri-state area. There is a subculture to this which the mainstream media have chosen to ignore. Why? For the same reason they turned a blind eye to Clinton’s white trash sexual predatory misogyny? Values and standards of behavior have changed in modern America but the media has continued with antinomian moral relativism on the issue (with the exception of when Trump started hazing Megyn Kelly on Twitter like an adolescent idiot). If that gets Hillary Clinton elected to impose low-estrogen socialism so much the more absurd.

Leave a Reply