Context and the 2016 Presidential Election

A common translation of a Latin inscription on William Bradford's grave marker is "What our fathers with so much difficulty attained do not basely relinquish."  Conceptualizing "fathers" in this case as "fathers and mothers" is appropriate – not to contest masculinity or for political correctness, but to also recognize the contributions and sacrifices of the founding women. 

The 2016 presidential race is being defined during persistent and pervasive attacks by the left with open and full support by the mainstream media.  The 2016 presidential race is also being defined by those who have looked at the candidates and made decisions regarding voting as a matter of conscience, ideological perspective, philosophical stance, or religious belief.  These convictions, however, are subject to a larger context that should be considered.  Otherwise, those things precious to the voters who hold such convictions appear to be at extreme risk if liberal progressivism is allowed to continue.

What is the larger context?  What is at stake in this presidential battle?  In what terms should the issues be defined?  What principles should be considered?  What are the consequences of continuing present-day liberal progressivism?  A short list comes to mind.

  • Individual liberty vs. statism
  • Nationalism vs. globalism
  • Freedom of speech vs. enforced political correctness
  • American Western culture vs. dominance by foreign cultures
  • Right to bear arms vs. limitation or prohibition of private gun ownership and carry
  • Personal property and wealth vs. transfer of wealth
  • Capitalism vs. socialism
  • Rule of law vs. corruption and rule by force, coercion, mob rule, authoritarianism
  • Democracy vs. oligarchy
  • Constitutionalism vs. judicial activism
  • Federalism vs. centralized government
  • Socially determined morals vs. facilitated moral decline
  • Freedom of religion vs. religious persecution, dominance by religious sects
  • Personal safety vs. increased personal vulnerability and jeopardy
  • The Constitution as supreme law of the land vs. rule by international law
  • Equal opportunity vs. economic equity
  • Right to life vs. increased acceptance of euthanasia, unrestricted abortion
  • Traditional values vs. relative values, with each person deciding his own reality
  • Support of Israel vs. allowing or contributing to Israel's demise or destruction
  • Respect for police and other public servants vs. increasing denigration and assassinations
  • All lives matter vs. only some matter
  • United States as a superpower vs. submission to other powerful nations
  • Return to national solvency vs. increasing massive national debt

These are poles of continuums.   The United States presently rests at different points along each, with regional and local differences.  It is left to the reader to determine the relative positions of the 2016 presidential candidates on them.  In doing so, great care is necessary to obtain accurate information.  The 2016 election is all about issues in spite of the attempts to define it only in terms of personalities.

The left has been highly successful in its unrelenting pursuit of defining the issues.  The opposition to leftists' onslaught, with some exceptions in talk radio and alternative media, has been defensive.  An offensive and proactive approach would be to take every opportunity, whether interpersonal, in groups, or in any type of media, to expose and explain the consequences and outcomes of the 2016 presidential election based on the list above.  There is not much time left before November to do so.   

A larger context should bring matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religion in this presidential debate into greater understanding.  The larger context should provide a firm basis to support and vote for the candidate who does not champion liberal progressivism.  Should the current course of this nation continue, any matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religious beliefs preventing support of Donald Trump will be overwhelmed during more years of rule by liberal progressivism.  The positive legacies from the past and the historical resiliency of our nation cannot continue to prevent its demise.  Not voting for Mr. Trump hands the victory to his opponent.

As an illustration, an elderly gentleman named Leonard once would not buy an eye ointment from a certain drugstore.  This was his firm conviction.  Leonard's 94-year-old wife, Wanda, wanted that specific ointment for her eyes.  Concerned family members couldn't find it anywhere else in town.  Finally, much to Leonard's distress, his grandson purchased the ointment from the forbidden merchant.  Wanda, much to her relief, treated her eyes.  Although this might be viewed by some as pragmatism or situational ethics, the grandson correctly decided that Wanda's need of the ointment took precedence over Leonard's conviction.

This article is not a call to abandon personal matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religion.  Our nation is founded on freedom of conscience.  It is a call to examine these convictions in the context and perspective of the principles embedded in the profound issues of the 2016 presidential election.  It is also a call to proactively and accurately define the issues in every possible venue. 

Many opposed to liberal progressivism believe that all things dear to the forefathers and mothers and to those who have defended and nourished the exceptional nature of the United States since its inception are at great risk.  When considering context in this election, the admonition "what our fathers [and mothers] with so much difficulty attained do not basely relinquish" should be strongly considered.

A common translation of a Latin inscription on William Bradford's grave marker is "What our fathers with so much difficulty attained do not basely relinquish."  Conceptualizing "fathers" in this case as "fathers and mothers" is appropriate – not to contest masculinity or for political correctness, but to also recognize the contributions and sacrifices of the founding women. 

The 2016 presidential race is being defined during persistent and pervasive attacks by the left with open and full support by the mainstream media.  The 2016 presidential race is also being defined by those who have looked at the candidates and made decisions regarding voting as a matter of conscience, ideological perspective, philosophical stance, or religious belief.  These convictions, however, are subject to a larger context that should be considered.  Otherwise, those things precious to the voters who hold such convictions appear to be at extreme risk if liberal progressivism is allowed to continue.

What is the larger context?  What is at stake in this presidential battle?  In what terms should the issues be defined?  What principles should be considered?  What are the consequences of continuing present-day liberal progressivism?  A short list comes to mind.

  • Individual liberty vs. statism
  • Nationalism vs. globalism
  • Freedom of speech vs. enforced political correctness
  • American Western culture vs. dominance by foreign cultures
  • Right to bear arms vs. limitation or prohibition of private gun ownership and carry
  • Personal property and wealth vs. transfer of wealth
  • Capitalism vs. socialism
  • Rule of law vs. corruption and rule by force, coercion, mob rule, authoritarianism
  • Democracy vs. oligarchy
  • Constitutionalism vs. judicial activism
  • Federalism vs. centralized government
  • Socially determined morals vs. facilitated moral decline
  • Freedom of religion vs. religious persecution, dominance by religious sects
  • Personal safety vs. increased personal vulnerability and jeopardy
  • The Constitution as supreme law of the land vs. rule by international law
  • Equal opportunity vs. economic equity
  • Right to life vs. increased acceptance of euthanasia, unrestricted abortion
  • Traditional values vs. relative values, with each person deciding his own reality
  • Support of Israel vs. allowing or contributing to Israel's demise or destruction
  • Respect for police and other public servants vs. increasing denigration and assassinations
  • All lives matter vs. only some matter
  • United States as a superpower vs. submission to other powerful nations
  • Return to national solvency vs. increasing massive national debt

These are poles of continuums.   The United States presently rests at different points along each, with regional and local differences.  It is left to the reader to determine the relative positions of the 2016 presidential candidates on them.  In doing so, great care is necessary to obtain accurate information.  The 2016 election is all about issues in spite of the attempts to define it only in terms of personalities.

The left has been highly successful in its unrelenting pursuit of defining the issues.  The opposition to leftists' onslaught, with some exceptions in talk radio and alternative media, has been defensive.  An offensive and proactive approach would be to take every opportunity, whether interpersonal, in groups, or in any type of media, to expose and explain the consequences and outcomes of the 2016 presidential election based on the list above.  There is not much time left before November to do so.   

A larger context should bring matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religion in this presidential debate into greater understanding.  The larger context should provide a firm basis to support and vote for the candidate who does not champion liberal progressivism.  Should the current course of this nation continue, any matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religious beliefs preventing support of Donald Trump will be overwhelmed during more years of rule by liberal progressivism.  The positive legacies from the past and the historical resiliency of our nation cannot continue to prevent its demise.  Not voting for Mr. Trump hands the victory to his opponent.

As an illustration, an elderly gentleman named Leonard once would not buy an eye ointment from a certain drugstore.  This was his firm conviction.  Leonard's 94-year-old wife, Wanda, wanted that specific ointment for her eyes.  Concerned family members couldn't find it anywhere else in town.  Finally, much to Leonard's distress, his grandson purchased the ointment from the forbidden merchant.  Wanda, much to her relief, treated her eyes.  Although this might be viewed by some as pragmatism or situational ethics, the grandson correctly decided that Wanda's need of the ointment took precedence over Leonard's conviction.

This article is not a call to abandon personal matters of conscience, philosophy, ideology, and religion.  Our nation is founded on freedom of conscience.  It is a call to examine these convictions in the context and perspective of the principles embedded in the profound issues of the 2016 presidential election.  It is also a call to proactively and accurately define the issues in every possible venue. 

Many opposed to liberal progressivism believe that all things dear to the forefathers and mothers and to those who have defended and nourished the exceptional nature of the United States since its inception are at great risk.  When considering context in this election, the admonition "what our fathers [and mothers] with so much difficulty attained do not basely relinquish" should be strongly considered.