The Walsh Awakens: Matt Walsh Stares into the Trump and the Trump Stares Back


trump sewer.jpg

Matt Walsh stares into the abyss, only to find Donald Trump staring back

Friedrich Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. Not because I agree with him – I find his views to be quite dangerous – but because he’s so absurd, so willing to take his thoughts to their conclusions, and there’s that perverse part of me that enjoys watching a crazy man shout in the streets. Nietzsche is to philosophy what Gary Busey is to television; both have staying power even though no one really knows why, both pump out Tweets (or “sayings” for Nietzsche, but they were Tweets before Twitter) that look deep, but are just asinine, yet I’ll be damned if it’s not the most entertaining thing you’ll see.

Which brings me to a very famous and oft misunderstood quote by Nietzsche:

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.

And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

The point being, the longer you fight against a thing, the more likely you are to become that thing (or like it) or realize you already are like that thing. We sometimes hate something not because we’re actually opposed to it, but because it exposes us for what we are.

And the mentioning of Gary Busey brings me to another point…Donald Trump. Trump, much like Ron Burgundy, is kind of a big deal, especially if you ask him. He’s the bull and the United States is his china shop. What ought to worry most people is that Donald Trump, as of January 2016, has a legitimate chance to become the next president of the United States. One conservative who is worried, shockingly enough, is shock jock Blaze columnist Matt Walsh.

Walsh is baffled (BAFFLED!) that evangelical Christians could possibly support Donald Trump as president. Walsh appropriately points out that Trump is the antithesis of Christian values. I happen to agree with Walsh here as Trump’s positions do contradict everything within Christianity. Of course, that’s not what Walsh meant. Walsh, instead, points to Trump’s personal life and the fact that he’s apparently not “God-fearing” as the reason he’s anti-Trump. In other words, Walsh’s problems are with the guy’s behavior and not his beliefs, and that’s a problem.

It’s inconsistent for Walsh to actually take a stand against Trump because the two are almost eye-to-eye on the policy level. Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal immigrants and ban them from entering the country, just as Matt Walsh wants to deport all illegal immigrants. Donald Trump wants to stop the refugees from entering the country, just like Matt Walsh wants to stop them.  Donald Trump wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth,” which, as you guessed, Matt Walsh wants to stop political correctness by speaking “truth.” Donald Trump likes a low minimum wage, as does Matt Walsh. Both agree that we don’t have a police abuse problem in America, and that African Americans aren’t suffering from it, but rather that the African American community is the problem (of course, without putting it in those terms).

And the list really does go on. I tried to find one major area of major disagreement and I came up with nothing. If you take the person of Donald Trump out of the equation and just look at the issues, then Donald Trump is the ideal candidate for Matt Walsh. So why isn’t Walsh wanting to #TrumpTheVote? Because he doesn’t like Trump as a person and he can’t understand why people, evangelical Christians, his readers, like Trump so much.

What Matt Walsh doesn’t realize, or perhaps he realizes and fears, is that Donald J. Trump is the personification of Matt Walsh’s – and by extension the far right’s – beliefs, and they don’t like what they see. After all, he accurately calls Trump “Godless,” and even an atheist would have to agree that Trump is pretty godless. Or, to quote Matt Walsh,

I know this will not resonate with atheists, but for us God-fearing folk it is extraordinarily obvious and irrefutable that we ought to only vote for other God-fearing folk. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I think it goes without saying that if the governed ought to be moral and religious, certainly the governors ought to be the same, and arguably more so.

That brings me to Donald Trump. I’ve tried to talk sense into Trump fans a thousand different ways and to no avail. It is a mob mentality driving Trump-mania, and mobs are famously difficult to reason with.

There is no use in trying to appeal to them as one group, anyway. Many elements comprise the Trump base, and most of them have values and principles that are completely antithetical to what any real conservative believes. But in the middle of this bizzare [sic] Trumpling potpourri are, apparently, Christians. Perhaps a vast number of them.

Ignoring the idea that not a single president has ever been “God-fearing” (how does one fear God, but not enough to free one’s slaves?), all of this argues against the person of Donald Trump, but not the policies of Donald Trump. But other than the fact that Donald Trump is a disgusting excuse for a human being, what policy differences does he supposedly have with Trump? What values and principles does Trump have that are antithetical to conservatives, but still somehow leads to (allegedly) conservative policy beliefs? How can two antithetical – that is, contradictory – beliefs result in the same policy decisions across the board? It’s one thing to have some overlap (Bernie Sanders, who begins from a non-Christian belief, still holds some policy decisions that overlap old Christian political beliefs), but to have a 1:1 match goes beyond a bit of overlap.

While Communism is the logical conclusion of Capitalism, at their core the two are antithetical, meaning that at a policy level one will have to give way to the other. Christianity and atheism are antithetical beliefs, meaning that if one derives one’s political beliefs from one’s metaphysical beliefs, there will be some differences in the political beliefs. Higher order beliefs will always impact lower order beliefs, meaning anything contradictory at a higher order will lead to contradictory policy beliefs (if consistency exists).

While Matt Walsh serves as a good whipping boy, the fact is there are many evangelical Christians who hold the same policy beliefs as Trump, but are somehow baffled by Trump’s success and abhor him as a person. In essence, they’ve stared into the abyss and found Donald Trump staring back. They’re left with some very unsettling conclusions:

  1. If a godless man such as Donald Trump comes to the same policy beliefs that they, the God-fearing evangelical conservatives have, then perhaps Trump isn’t godless, or perhaps being God-fearing doesn’t really matter in picking the “right” policy. Apparently one can be God-fearing, godless, or anything in between and still come to the correct conclusions in terms of policies
  2. If a godless man such as Donald Trumps holds the same policy beliefs as God-fearing evangelical conservatives, then maybe those policy beliefs don’t actually stem from a Christ-centered belief structure

Either option isn’t fun.

Christians have seemingly ignored the warnings of Francis Schaeffer, who rather than being the cause of the Religious Right (a famous, but absurdly inaccurate belief) actually warned against the rise of the Religious Right. In both A Christian Manifesto and The Great Evangelical Disaster, Schaeffer warns Christians to never become allies with the political process or political parties, to always act as co-belligerents on areas of agreement. Schaeffer was, of course, referencing the issue of abortion, arguing that Christians shouldn’t ally with Republicans in fighting abortion, but should instead stand as co-belligerents on this one issue.

Instead, today we have a form of Christianity that is almost entirely a co-opted wing of the Republican Party. Rather than evangelicals influencing Republicans, the conservatives, or the far right, we have the far right influencing evangelicals (and even some Catholics and Orthodox). Of course, not all conservative evangelicals are enamored with Trump and unlike Matt Walsh, they can stand against Trump with consistency. Dr. Russell Moore has not really argued against the person of Trump, so much as he’s argued against the ideas and policies of Trump, something Matt Walsh and other far right conservatives cannot do without a hint of irony.

Ultimately, to play off the idea of Russell Moore, conservative evangelicals have adopted a golden calf (not that liberal evangelicals are any better). But that golden calf isn’t Donald Trump, it’s the heartless and godless beliefs that are behind Trump. The anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-refugee, pro-nationalistic, pro-authoritarianism beliefs are not Christian and have never been Christian. While Christians have co-opted the world’s beliefs, they’ve done so by damaging the Gospel, not enhancing it. The golden calf in modern America, for conservatives, is conservatism itself. It’s the modern conservatism that comes with an implicit “America First” belief. It’s a political belief that looks to the nation before looking to the world or, more importantly, looking to Christ.

Christianity is a global religion with global ramifications. As a Christian I am called to help all, regardless of the consequences. In the far right there are caveats or complete blocks to who I can help. Donald Trump isn’t a compatible candidate because his personal life is a cesspool of human waste; he’s not a compatible candidate because his beliefs and policies attack the very heart of the Gospel. If your beliefs align with his, even if you hate him, perhaps rather than condemning the darkness of Trump’s heart it’s best to gaze into the abyss of your own. But be warned, the abyss might gaze back.

Immigration, Executive Orders, and the Christian Message: Another One Matt Walsh Gets Wrong


IMG_0547At this point I feel like I could make a living off writing against Matt Walsh. I’ve yet to come across anything he’s written where I can sit there and go, “This post was substantial, informative, and something I can mostly agree with.” Instead, reading a Matt Walsh post is a lot like trying to chug cheap whiskey; it’s a bad idea and you’re going to regret it. Walsh is the Kardashians of the conservative movement. No one really knows how someone who has done literally nothing became so popular and annoying, there’s just no explanation for either the Kardashians or Walsh. And yet, he persists. His latest ramblings on immigration reform attack President Obama’s executive order as well as the idea of immigration reform, all the while Walsh is proving that he’s not really pro-family, unless your family happens to be American.

First and foremost, someone should alert Walsh to the fact that if you’re going to refer to someone using the poetic apostrophe “O” that it’s spelled “O,” not “oh.” “Oh” is an emotive interjection, such as, “Oh, I was just thinking…” If I want to address someone, I’d say, “O Holiness.” A minor note, but one worth noting. I know of the above because I used to make the same mistake. Thankfully, my English teacher in the tenth grade corrected me.

The biggest complaint that Walsh has with Obama is the use of an executive order. Cutting through all the wording, Walsh’s argument boils down to this: “Obama bypassed Congress and in so doing created the law by fiat, which makes him a tyrant.” I’ll be the first one to admit that I’m not too keen on executive orders. There’s a reason that up until the late 19th century, they were used quite sparingly. Regardless, the last president to have less than 100 executive orders within his term(s) was Chester Arthur (who?), back in 1885. In other words, for 129 years every president has issued at least 100 executive orders. In that timespan, there have only been four presidents who issued less executive orders than Obama (who, to be fair, is halfway into his second term, so that number could go up). Regardless, as far as precedence goes, Obama is pretty low on executive orders. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all sat above 300 executive orders.

Again, while I’m not a fan of executive orders, they’ve been common place for 129 years, they do allow clarification on the role of the executive office in executing a law. Since George Washington – who issued eight executive orders – they’ve been used to explain the internal functions of how any given law ought to be enforced. They give the parameters and to what extent the law will be executed. The very first executive order was issued by Washington declaring that all US citizens had to stay out of the conflict involving England and France; what makes it more amazing is that Washington did this without interpreting any present laws, but rather created the decree because Congress was out of session. In other words, our very first President essentially created a law by fiat and hardly anyone batted an eye at the time. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus without Congress in session in 1861 and Congress didn’t back him until 1863. And let’s not forget possibly the most famous executive order ever issued, the Emancipation Proclamation.

There are multiple examples of presidents, many of whom are considered great presidents, using their executive power to decree laws without Congress in session. In fact, the last few presidents have all issued executive orders dealing with immigration reform. Thus, Obama doing the same – while not necessarily a good thing – isn’t out of line or odd. If it were then Republicans could easily defund the executive order to challenge it in court (as all executive orders can be subjected to judicial review). Republicans already did this with the famous “birth control” executive order. They could attempt it with the order on illegal immigration, but there’s not a lot in the Constitution to show how the executive order is wrong. Thus, contra Walsh, Obama didn’t do anything tyrannical, nor did he break the law, nor did he really do anything wrong from a legal standpointContinue reading

Human Dignity vs. Minimum Wage or, Where the Right Goes Wrong


DSC02097Matt Walsh, the male Ann Coulter for the right (and he’s on the same path), is back at it again, creating a straw man and then hacking it to pieces. This time around, he’s picking on Walmart employees that don’t enjoy the wages and treatment, saying they should be thankful to have a job and that if they just worked a bit harder, they’d all get promotions. In this conservative utopia where hard work is always justly rewarded, everyone becomes the manager, everyone works their way up to the top, and everyone becomes rich who deserves to be rich. Sadly, however, Matt Walsh (and conservatives in general) ignore the importance of human dignity within the wage debate (not that liberals do any better; they demonize and dehumanize the rich, whereas the conservatives demonize and dehumanize the poor).

From a purely practical standpoint, basic psychology tells us that if we treat someone as less than human then that person will act as less than human. One wonders why in the Roman Empire there were so precious few slave revolts until one realizes that beating slaves and treating them as less than human led them to believe they were less than human. The same rings true within the American south, where slaves didn’t revolt even when they made up a majority. Typically, when humans are exploited, they begin to think of themselves as “lesser than” and act accordingly. It should serve as no surprise, then, that when you put a minimum investment into a person you get a minimum return.

The better I’m treated, the less I have to worry about bills, the more incentive there is to earn higher pay for working harder, the likelier I am to be a better worker. The promise of an eventual promotion that may or may not come is merely dangling a carrot in front of the horse, getting him to run harder without the promise of ever actually eating the carrot. “If you work hard, then perhaps someday you too could become an executive in this corporation!” This, of course, is assuming that you’re able to keep a roof over your head, pay for electricity and water, and then afford the necessary education to get promoted. More than likely, however, even the hardest working Walmart employee (or any other big retail chain) will find herself stuck within store management, typically after years of hard work.

See, for all the love between Christianity and American conservatives, we would do well to remember that the two are not the same. Modern conservatism, or neo-conservativism is actually Darwinian and materialistic in its outlook on life. Modern conservatism, at least economic conservatism, is nothing more than the bastard child of Ayn Rand, the ugly offspring of objectivism. Within this philosophy the individual reigns supreme, even over the family unit. The essential core is that if a man wants to be rich, he has to be willing to outwork and undercut anyone around him, even if it’s his wife and kids. The end objective of existence is for the individual to realize himself. Such a teaching stands in stark contrast to Christianity, which teaches that the individual is nothing without the community, that a man must sacrifice himself to his family’s needs, and the objective of existence is to become like God.

Thus, the minimum wage debate is an interesting one in which we have conservatives, many of whom want to “take back” a “Christian America,” arguing for pragmatic utilitarianism, one of the most anti-Christian philosophies out there. “I’ll pay you for what I think you’re worth, depending on what you bring me.” Such a thought process inherently views the laborer not as a person, but as a commodity. The laborer is then viewed as nothing more than livestock, produce, or whatever it is the company happens to sell. While the labor itself is a commodity, the laborer is not; he is a human being and worthy of dignity and respect. The Christian view, then, is that the commodity of labor is to be treated fairly to the laborer because he is made in the image of God. Continue reading

Empathy Goes a Long Way or, The One Where Matt Walsh is Wrong (Again)


DSC01434I’ve done quite a bit to avoid writing about Matt Walsh, mostly because I really don’t want to give him the time of day. His posts typically consist of the following pattern:

[Sarcastic strawman of position he’s going to argue against]

[Saying, “Yeah, but that position is just wrong, and you’re stupid if you believe it, let me show you how]

[If you believe x, and I don’t believe x, then you’re a moron. QED]

Go through most of his writings where he’s contra-anything and you’ll see that tends to be his typical pattern. Recently, he wrote about how he thinks white men can have an opinion on any issue and that one cannot be dismissed simply because one is a white man. To be fair, he’s mostly right; being a man, woman, black, white, straight, homosexual or anything does not preclude one from forming an opinion on any issue. After all, if I read that Nigerian terrorists are kidnapping women for simply going to school, I do not need to be from Nigeria nor a woman in order to form the opinion that what these terrorists are doing is wrong. Likewise, on the issue of abortion, I need not be a woman in order to make the argument that killing an innocent human being is wrong, nor do I need to be a woman to make the argument that a fetus is an innocent human being. There are far too many people who simply dismiss an argument by saying, “Well, you aren’t a man/woman/military member/pacifist/etc, therefore you cannot make a valid argument on this issue.” It’s not just liberals that do this either; argue that the war in Iraq was unjustified and someone will might argue that since you’re not a veteran, you can’t have an opinion on the matter.

Had Walsh decided to make a well-reasoned argument, showing that it’s a logical fallacy (poisoning the well, ad hominem, and so on), then good on him. Sadly, of course, you don’t get to his level of popularity without polarizing the issues (which is probably why we at The Christian Watershed will happily hover in our current readership). Thus, instead of saying, “I get where you’re coming from, but here are some good reasons as to why you’re wrong,” we get, “Man, you’re an idiot and it’s stupid and you’re a liberal and I’m right and I’m white so I’m going to mock you and never make an actual point.”

However, Walsh then explains why he’s chosen to write about this specific issue, and it’s in this moment that I realize he’s wrong. He states,  Continue reading