Wallwritings

By James M. Wall

The early morning after Donald Trump’s shocking upset election victory, the first thought that came to my mind was Job’s dark lament: “For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me”. KJV Job 3:25.

My mother seared that verse into my consciousness the moment she quoted it, when my wife and I traveled 45 sad miles to tell my mother of the unexpected death of her son, who was also my oldest brother.

Job’s lament was her immediate reaction, followed by her quoting to me another line from Job, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him”.

When I recall that exchange that took place in my childhood home in Monroe, Georgia, it is a memory in a different context, consistent with the distress I felt in response to Trump’s victory.

It is a response not shared by more than half of those voters who gave Donald Trump the presidency.

Stunned by that final vote, and yet bolstered by the memory of my mother’s testimony of faith in the midst of her darkness, I turned to John Wesley’s Notes.  

This is how Methodism’s founder understood Job’s lament.:

3:25 Feared – Even in the time of my prosperity, I was full of fears, considering the variety of God’s providences, the changeableness of this vain world, God’s justice, and the sinfulness of all mankind. And these fears of mine, were not in vain, but are justified by my present calamities.

“Justified” had a special meaning for Wesley. Each faith tradition has its own way of understanding a believer’s trust in God. In the Methodist tradition:

The justifying dimension of “God’s grace is a gift. God’s grace alone brings us into relationship with God. There are no hoops through which we have to jump in order to please God and to be loved by God. God has acted in Jesus Christ. We need only to respond in faith.

It was her belief, as my mother testified those decades ago, that our “present calamities” will not be permanent. For her, out of darkness comes hope.

Donald Trump’s political victory was a defeat of the political establishment of both political parties which have grown moribund because those parties placed far too much political power in the hands of those who seek power to enrich themselves .

Donald Trump is not the leader I would have chosen to break up that moribund political/financial combine. But Trump it is, Mr. and Mrs. America, the man the majority of you chose to be our 45th President with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

Will Trump be as disastrous as his campaign rhetoric and personal comments would lead us to expect, or is there hope things can change for the better?

For one answer, join Thomas Friedman as he searches for a “silver lining” in his post-election column for The New York Times.

Before I lay out all my fears, is there any silver lining to be found in this vote? I’ve been searching for hours, and the only one I can find is this: I don’t think Trump was truly committed to a single word or policy he offered during the campaign, except one phrase: “I want to win.”

But Donald Trump cannot be a winner unless he undergoes a radical change in personality and politics and becomes everything he was not in this campaign. He has to become a healer instead of a divider; a compulsive truth-teller rather than a compulsive liar; someone ready to study problems and make decisions based on evidence, not someone who just shoots from the hip; someone who tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear; and someone who appreciates that an interdependent world can thrive only on win-win relationships, not zero-sum ones.

Can there be a total make-over for Trump from the racist, misogynist bully he portrayed in his campaign? Is that even possible? This is not a beauty contest, a television show or a hotel complex.

It is the leadership of the free world he has been handed. If he wants his time in office to be one that is consistent with his stated desire to be a unifier and strong president, he must surround himself with builders who know how to shape a post-establishment political nation that unifies and does not divide. 

For the rest of us, we know what we must do: Never despair and never quit working for others in our particular corner of God’s creation.

The image above, of President-elect Trump, is a screen shot taken on election night. 

by James M. Wall

The Atlantic, a magazine in print since 1857, does not hand out a presidential endorsement except when it feels one of the two choices is a serious danger to the nation.

It has made a U.S. presidential endorsement only three times in its history.

The first was in 1860, when James Russell Lowell, the founding editor of The Atlantic, argued that the Republican Party, and Abraham Lincoln, the Republican nominee, “represented the only reasonable pathway out of the existential crisis then facing the country”.

That crisis was one of the animating causes of The Atlantic’s formation in 1857, the abolition of slavery.

The Atlantic’s second presidential endorsement came 104 years later, when in 1964 the publication endorsed incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson, over his Republican challenger, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.

Edward Weeks, writing on behalf of the magazine, cited Lowell’s words from 1860, before making his case for the election of President Johnson, who would, The Atlantic believed, “bring to the vexed problem of civil rights a power of conciliation which will prevent us from stumbling down the road taken by South Africa.”

The Atlantic’s third endorsement arrived this month, 52 years after its Lyndon B. Johnson endorsement.

The Atlantic’s 2016 choice is Hillary Clinton.

In its Clinton endorsement, the magazine’s current editors refer back to language from the 1964 decision to select Lyndon Johnson over Barry Goldwater, using words that resonate in this current 2016 campaign:

 We think it unfortunate that Barry Goldwater takes criticism as a personal affront; we think it poisonous when his anger betrays him into denouncing what he calls the “radical” press by bracketing the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Izvestia.

There speaks not the reason of the Southwest but the voice of Joseph McCarthy. We do not impugn Senator Goldwater’s honesty. We sincerely distrust his factionalism and his capacity for judgment.

In 2016, The Atlantic acknowledges that “our position is similar to the one” in which its editors found themselves in 1964.

We are impressed by many of the qualities of the [2016] Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.

By calling its Clinton endorsement Against Donald Trump, the magazine makes clear that its major rationale in supporting Clinton is to warn voters of the dangers of a Trump victory on November 8.

This should reassure those Republicans who will, once Trump suffers his almost certain defeat, have a new assignment of rebuilding the GOP after the damage inflicted by Trump.

The Atlantic’s harsh words about Trump should also caution those voters tempted to vote for third-party candidates. Their vote will, ipso facto, be a Trump vote. 

Trump supporters waited anxiously for his performance in the third and final debate Wednesday night in Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Cathleen Decker, writing for the Los Angeles Times, reports that Trump began the debate in a calmer tone than the angry tone he employs on the campaign trail.

It was not long, however, before the troublesome Trump emerged. Decker begins:

Donald Trump needed a compelling victory in Wednesday’s debate to alter the course of a campaign that has increasingly moved toward Hillary Clinton both nationally and in key states.

He did not get it.

The final debate was notable for delving into policy matters more than in two prior meetings, and for a more measured performance by Trump, in what was undeniably his best debate.

But whatever good he might have done for himself was flattened in two moments in which he appeared unable to take responsibility for his actions and unwilling to put aside personal disappointment for the nation’s good.

The Forward site points to Trump’s most damaging statements which are almost certain to harm him with undecided voters: 

When moderator Chris Wallace asked him — twice — whether he would accept the results of the vote on November 8, Trump — twice — refused to say he would. “I will look at it at the time,” he said smugly, as if he alone were the arbiter of what is right and fair about the electoral process. “I will keep you in suspense,” he said, as if this were yet another episode of the TV reality show that is his life.

In 1860, The Atlantic founding editor James Russell Lowell, warned about “the perishability of the great American democratic experiment if citizens (at the time, white, male citizens) were to cease taking seriously their franchise”:

In a society like ours, where every man [or woman] may transmute his [or her] private thought into history and destiny by dropping it into the ballot-box, a peculiar responsibility rests upon the individual … For, though during its term of office the government be practically as independent of the popular will as that of Russia, yet every fourth year the people are called upon to pronounce upon the conduct of their affairs.

In less than three weeks, our “every fourth year” event will have its final moment of decision-making, in an election that most certainly is not “rigged”, though Donald Trump wants his die-hard loyalists to believe it is.

Trump has already signaled that he will not accept the election results. It appears almost certain now that he is laying plans for what would be a cult he will build around himself. His son is already talking about developing an independent Trump television network. 

Hillary Clinton’s victory will not be a mandate; it will be a rejection of Trumpism.  

To paraphrase a line from Mission Impossible: “Good morning, Mr. and Mrs. America. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to demand that your new President choose the right path toward justice and peace at home and abroad”.

The Hillary Clinton photo above, is by Brian Snyder for Reuters.

by James M. Wall

The moment on the debate stage which was most revealing was not one of Donald Trump’s nervous deep breaths.

The most revealing moment came immediately after the debate ended. Hillary Clinton moved quickly down the steps to greet supporters who were rushing to shake her hand.

Donald Trump waited until his family and two aides joined him on the stage. He stood there briefly for photos. Then, the most uninformed and politically inexperienced nominee in the nation’s history, left the stage.

On November 8, Donald Trump could receive full control of this nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Dare we trust him with such awesome power? Dare we trust a man about whom we know virtually nothing other than what we have seen on television reality shows, or promoting beauty contests?

Who are his friends? Who whispers into his ear? Or, as they say in Chicago politics, “who sent you”?

Donald J. Trump claims to be a highly successful business corporate executive who builds buildings and makes huge sums of money. 

How is he viewed among his fellow corporate executives?  A study of campaign contributors by the Wall Street Journal discovered a revealing fact about Trump.

No chief executive at the nation’s 100 largest companies had donated to Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign through August, a sharp reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of the CEOs of Fortune 100 companies supported GOP nominee Mitt Romney. 

This news will delight Trump’s fervent anti-corporate fan base. But what does it say about Trump’s standing in the business community?

In Monday’s debate at Hofstra University, Trump demonstrated his personal “bluff and bluster” style when he reiterated his primary campaign’s repeated display of ignorance of foreign policy issues.

Japan Times staff writer Ayako Mie reported an example. Of special concern to Ayako Mie is that Trump so flippantly disregarded decades of diplomatic understanding of a defense issue of deep interest to the Japanese. Mia wrote:

Trump reiterated his position that U.S. allies — including Japan — must dole out more cash if they wish to continue being protected by the U.S. military, a stance the real estate mogul has maintained since his campaign’s start and one that has deeply troubled America’s partners.

“They do not pay us what they should be paying us because we are providing tremendous service and we’re losing a fortune,” Trump said. “We can’t defend Japan … they may have to defend themselves or they may have to help us out.” . .

The Council of Foreign Affairs website explains “The Status of Forces Agreement” which Trump falsely perceives as a one-sided business transaction where “we’re losing a fortune”.

You don’t have to love our ever-expansive empirical reach (which I do not) to realize that this is not a business deal gone sour. It is a diplomatic agreement worked out between sovereign nations to benefit both Japan and the U.S.

Trump’s business myopia has no awareness that “The Status of Forces Agreement” is intended to benefit Japan’s security and the U.S. desire for “peace and security in the Far East”.

Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in Japan (hereinafter referred to as “the Status of Forces Agreement”), both signed at Washington on January 19, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the United States armed forces”), contribute to the security of Japan and the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East.

During the primaries, the Japan Times explained how the cost of the Agreement is shared.

Trump has argued Japan should pay all the costs of stationing U.S. forces in the country, saying he would otherwise consider withdrawing the U.S. military and allowing Japan to arm itself with nuclear weapons. . . .

How much of the cost of U.S. forces in Japan is borne by the U.S., and how much is spent by Japan?

According to the 2017 Operation and Maintenance Overview by the Office of the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense, the direct cost of stationing U.S. forces in Japan is estimated at $5.47 billion (¥595 billion “yen”) for fiscal 2016, which includes personnel, operations, maintenance, construction and family housing.

In addition, according to the Defense Ministry, Japan is set to pay ¥192 billion to support U.S. forces in fiscal 2016, including most of the utility charges at U.S. bases and facilities in Japan, as well as the wages of Japanese employees.

As a former Secretary of State, Clinton is well aware of these details. She also knows how little Trump knows, or cares to learn, about those details.

She responded to Trump’s embarrassing display of ignorance by quickly demonstrating how a president should sound when discussing an international agreement.

“I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them.” 

“It is essential that America’s word be good,” she added. 

The mainline media pretends a “balance” in coverage which has led to a downplaying of Trump’s repeated fabrications, distortions and displays of ignorance.

The debates present the candidates without media filter. For those who may have missed the debate, here is the video:

Trump had one major stumble over international agreements, and by any reasonable standard, he has had many others throughout his campaign.

Compare his stumble to President Gerald Ford’s costly gaffe in the second General Election debate with the Democratic challenger, Jimmy Carter.

Time magazine summarized:

During a 1976 presidential debate against a then-obscure Georgia Governor named Jimmy Carter, Ford famously uttered: “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” [One panelist], Max Frankel of the New York Times, responded incredulously, “I’m sorry, what? … did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it’s a communist zone?”

Ford refused to back down from his original statement, insisting that Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia are free from Soviet interference. 

In response, Carter said he’d like to see Ford “convince the Polish-Americans and the Czech-Americans and the Hungarian-Americans in this country, that those countries don’t live under the domination and supervision of the Soviet Union behind the Iron Curtain.”

News reports about the debate were dominated by Ford’s statement and its potential effect on the race. Most observers felt the debate proved to be a turning point and the key to Carter’s narrow electoral victory.

Unlike the 1976 Ford-Carter debate, when foreign policy was treated seriously, the first 2016 Clinton-Trump debate was covered as a prize fight with media judges scoring Trump losing on style.

Two rematches are slated, October 9, at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri and October 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Which leads, finally, to this puzzlement: How could anyone who knows the decision-making demands on a President, possibly cast a vote for Trump (or a third party contender, same thing)? 

Would you want your surgeon to invite Donald J. Trump into the operating room to perform your gall bladder surgery? Surely not. You would not want to hear, as you went under the anesthesia, “Where’s the gall bladder”?

The picture of Trump is from Shutterstock. The picture of Clinton is a screen shot. The front page is from This Was Television https://thiswastv.com/2012/08/22/debate-night-fordcarter-1976/