A Quiet and Dignified Life: The Unironic Case for Voting Trump

Before you may opt to let this anger you, please read the whole thing…

I used to be hip. I ran an urban farm in the dying rustbelt city of Toledo, OH. Yes, it is dying. You can always tell when a municipality is circling the drain by the contrast between its slogan and reality. Toledo's was (maybe still is) “You Will Do Better in Toledo.” Sure. If I were in charge of the city's messaging, I'd have gone with "Cheap Living" or "Ohio's Detroit."

I worked to make a positive impact in that town for many years. While I received a lot of support from individuals, I encountered opposition from local governing bodies.

Here’s a summary of how I came to distrust my government:

1. A friend of mine worked hard to grow an inner-city farm and orchard in one of the roughest parts of Toledo. During his 9-5, he was a landscaper, holding lucrative city contracts he had worked hard to earn. He made the mistake of confronting a cousin of a city councilman who was moving a little dope in his neighborhood. He lost all his city contracts and was threatened with fines for conducting commercial activities in a residential zone. I told him he should've just sold dope, and they'd have left him alone.

2. An unelected zoning official drove onto my property and threatened to fine me $700 a day for hosting a family in a beautiful, custom-built tiny house on my 4-acre property. I found this odd, considering that other neighbors housed murderers who got out early for snitching, a graveyard of rusted-out cars, and rundown, moldy RVs.

3. Then, another Toledo city official told me that the non-profit farm on the church property couldn't allow people to earn money from the food they were growing because "there could be a traffic concern with people lining up to buy tomatoes." I replied, "If there's a line of people causing traffic to back up on our road, someone like you will be giving me an award." He threatened to revoke the church's tax-exempt status and fine us if we continued our "Agripreneurship" program.

4. * I’ve added number 4 after finishing this essay. I thought some of you might be wondering why I’m not addressing the situation I’m currently experiencing. (Recently, my hometown and region experienced true trauma and devastation from Hurricane Helene. I will speak more on this later, but the federal government has again proven itself utterly incompetent, if not malevolent. However, I was moved to tears just yesterday watching every dude with a truck and equipment simultaneously activate to build roads and bridges. Every church has become a distribution center, and most businesses have become part-time ministries. I’m still in the throes of it now, so I’ll get my head around it and add more another day. For now, my power just came on after 8 days, and there’s work to do.)

That's when I knew Thoreau was right: "That government is best which governs least."

In reality, the government is a double-edged sword—keeping society from descending into chaos while maintaining the nasty habit of overstepping its bounds. For those of us who strive to lead peaceful, godly, and dignified lives (as the apostle Paul advises in 1 Timothy 2:1-3), the role of government is no small matter. Surprisingly, when faced with the choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, the candidate who seems least capable of a quiet life might be the one best equipped to safeguard ours. Yes, Donald Trump is the unexpected champion of the "dignity and quiet" we earnestly seek.

To unravel this paradox, we'll touch on the biblical mandate for limited government, and revisit some cautionary tales from history. By the end, you might find yourself viewing Trump not as the tyrant-in-chief but as a modern-day Samson: flawed and unorthodox, yet uniquely positioned to challenge the entrenched powers that threaten our ability to live quietly and freely.

Scripture doesn't shy away from discussing government; in fact, it offers a nuanced take that's both respectful and cautionary. Romans 13:1-4 tells us that governing authorities are instituted by God to maintain order and punish wrongdoing. But before we equate all government action with divine will, let's consider that the Bible is full of warnings about the perils of unchecked authority.

In 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites, longing to be like their neighbors, demand a king. God, through the prophet Samuel, warns them: a king will draft your sons into his armies, commandeer your daughters for his service, and seize the best of your fields and vineyards. In a twist, God is vindicated by the behavior of their first appointed king.

If you're searching for a biblical example of engaging with government without losing one's soul, Daniel is fine place to start. After being deported to Babylon, Daniel rises through the ranks due to his wisdom, integrity, and dream stuff, earning the favor of kings Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. For a time, he works within a secular system while maintaining his faith.

Daniel's story isn't all royal appointments and dream interpretations. Faced with the choice between obeying God or the king, they choose the former—consequences be damned. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue and end up in a fiery furnace. Daniel continues his daily prayers despite Darius's decree and finds himself in a den of lions.

Their civil disobedience underscores a vital principle: respect for government has its limits. When the state demands what belongs to God, be it worship or absolute allegiance, believers must respectfully decline, even at great personal cost. It's a timeless reminder that our ultimate loyalty lies beyond any earthly authority—that we are to render ourselves to God, and Ceaser can keep his change. 

History is full of examples of governments that began with promises of order and prosperity but ended in oppression and ruin. Look no further than the totalitarian regimes of the 1900s (e.g., Nazi Germany, Soviet Union), the post-war welfare states in the U.K., or the social credit system in China. These are cautionary tales warning us not to succumb to the allure of a kindhearted government offering "strength through joy."

Even the Roman Empire, lauded for its profound architectural marvels and legal innovations, paved roads that facilitated trade and communication—and swiftly quashed dissent. Crucifixion was a gruesome tool of state terror designed to instill fear and suppress opposition. Jesus's death wasn't just a miscarriage of justice; it was a stark illustration of how governmental power can be manipulated to serve the interests of the few at the expense of the innocent. When Pilate capitulated to the crowd's demands, he exemplified how political expediency often trumps justice in the corridors of power.

When Paul advises Timothy to pray for rulers so "that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way," the implication is clear: the ideal government is one that stays in its lane, maintaining order without micromanaging its citizens' lives. Considering Paul wrote this to Timothy just a few short years before and after being imprisoned by his governing authorities, it’s a compelling request.

C.S. Lewis, the human nature savant, delved into this issue in his essay "Willing Slaves of the Welfare State." (I cannot recommend it highly enough. Find it here: Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.) He cautioned against the allure of a government that promises to meet all our needs at the expense of our independence (or, as I have more recently observed, our interdependence).

(Side note: if you’re a writer and find that C.S. Lewis has already addressed your subject, read what he wrote. His words always have a way of better organizing my thoughts.)

Lewis argued that as the state assumes more responsibility for our welfare, we risk becoming passive recipients, trading our autonomy for security. "Of all tyrannies," he wrote, "a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." The danger lies not in malevolent dictatorships but in well-intentioned governments that, in their quest to improve society, end up snuffing out humanity. He continues, "the modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good – anyway, to do something to us or to make us something."

A government claiming to do good and compelling you to do or be good should frighten you. While the founding fathers and the Constitution exist to ensure the government does not infringe upon the lives of citizens, the government we have today is more akin to a technocratic ruling class. They certainly want to make us "something."

Now, I’m not an Anarchist, but I sure can happily carry on an extensive conversation with a Sovereign Citizen. I’m proud to be an American. I’m unashamed of my recently discovered nationalistic leanings. I do love my country because it was built on the exceptional principle of limited government, a design that recognizes the inherent value of individual freedom. Our founders, wary of tyranny, crafted a system of checks and balances to ensure that no single authority could overreach. This structure upholds our ability to live peacefully, pursue our dreams, and contribute to our communities without unnecessary interference. It's this blend of liberty and restraint that makes our nation not just a place to live, but a refuge for critics, outsiders, and entrepreneurs. I will pledge allegiance to a country that (in theory) is designed to not interfere with my living a peaceful and dignified life. I am a fan of any bulwark that heeds space for me to freely worship my True King: Jesus. 

Now, let's circle back to Donald Trump, the man who seems antithetical to the idea of a peaceful and quiet life. How could someone so divisive be a defender of the very tranquility we seek? The answer lies not in his demeanor but in his disruption of the status quo.

Trump's presidency was anything but conventional. His abrasive style and disregard for political niceties often overshadowed his policy achievements. Yet, it's precisely this unorthodox approach that enabled him to challenge entrenched bureaucracies.

He took aim at overregulation, rolling back numerous federal rules that he argued stifled economic growth and individual enterprise. His administration's tax cuts allowed Americans to keep more of their earnings, shifting power away from the ruling class and back to the people.

Thomas Sowell noted that "much of the government operates outside of the democratic process, where bureaucrats make decisions without accountability or transparency." Trump's willingness to confront these bureaucratic strongholds, albeit imperfectly, aligns with the goal of limiting government's reach.

Let's not pretend we have a humble leader in our midst: Trump is far from the paragon of Christian virtues. He is a childish braggart whose personal failings are beyond well-documented. But if history has taught us anything, it's that imperfect people can still affect meaningful change. Samson, after all, was no saint, but he delivered his people in a time of need.

In the grand scheme, Trump's role might be less about embodying moral leadership and more about being the necessary catalyst to disrupt a system that has grown complacent and overbearing.

Contrast this with Kamala Harris, whose vision for America involves a significant expansion of federal government roles, significantly, with great significance. From healthcare to education, her policies advocate for increased government intervention every single time. 

Harris's support for programs like Medicare for All reflects a belief that government is the primary vehicle for social improvement. While addressing societal inequities is commendable, relying heavily on centralized authority raises concerns. Plus, it’s always easy to feign virtue by being generous with other people’s money. 

Thomas Sowell warns in "The Vision of the Anointed" about those who see themselves as morally superior and entitled to impose their solutions on others. This mindset can lead to policies that, while well-intentioned, infringe on individual freedoms and stifle personal responsibility.

The danger isn't that Harris aims to address social issues—it's how she proposes to do so. Expanding governmental control risks repeating historical patterns where increased state power leads to unintended negative consequences. As we've seen, even benevolent intentions can pave the way to overreach.

In an ideal world, we'd have candidates who perfectly align with our values. Reality, however, often presents us with imperfect options. When considering the biblical emphasis on limited government and the historical evidence of overreach, the choice becomes a matter of prioritizing principles over personalities.

Voting for Trump doesn't equate to endorsing his personal shortcomings. Rather, it's an acknowledgment that his policies may better preserve the framework that allows for a peaceful and quiet life. His approach to deregulation and challenging bureaucratic overreach aligns with the biblical call for a government that enables rather than encumbers.

Conversely, Harris's platform, while sounding compassionate in intent, could lead to an expansion of government that history and Scripture warn against. The trade-off could be a gradual erosion of the very freedoms that allow individuals to live out their faith authentically.

Let’s embrace the ironic Champion of Quiet. It's a curious twist that the loudest voice might be the one that helps us reclaim a measure of peace and quiet. Donald Trump's tenure was tumultuous, but it also disrupted the growth of governmental overreach in significant ways.

For Christians committed to the principles of limited government, personal responsibility, and individual freedoms, Trump may be the unlikely ally we didn't expect but perhaps the one we need. His flaws are evident, but so is his willingness to challenge a system that threatens to become an unwieldy master rather than a public servant. He’s brash. He’s fighting against the prevailing cultural winds of the news media, the academy, entertainment, and more. So much so, that he’s persevered through two assassination attempts (still with a 95% negative bias in the media); two impeachment attempts for… (yeah I can’t really remember either); and unrelenting and persistent false accusations about Trump being a Russian asset, the “good people on both sides” allegation, and the fantasy of him becoming dictator (just like he did last time).

In the end, the decision isn't about finding a perfect candidate, obviously—it's about choosing the path that best aligns with the values of a peaceful and dignified life. In my experience, getting the unelected bureaucrats, the managerial class, the chattering classes, and of course , the actual elected government out of our lives. Sometimes, that means embracing the imperfect vessel that can steer us closer to the ideal following the true King instead of the pageantry forced on us. And in this case, that vessel might just be the one that's been making waves all along.

In closing, here are some pragmatic reasons, I’m excited to vote for Trump.

National Security: Trump's experienced national security team ensures a strong defense and protection against global threats, keeping Americans safe at home and abroad.

Judicial Appointments: His appointment of conservative judges protects the Constitution and keeps the legal system stable, which supports individual rights and limits government overreach.

Constitutional Protection: Trump is committed to upholding the Constitution, preventing drastic changes like expanding the Supreme Court, which ensures that American freedoms and rights remain intact. I’m reminded of him standing in front of a crowd after his nomination, while they chant “lock her up,” and Trump later said he never entertained the idea, because it “would tear apart this country.”

Energy Independence and Lower Gas Prices: By promoting domestic energy production (like fracking and nuclear energy), Trump helped lower gas prices and ensured energy independence, saving families money and protecting jobs in the energy sector. The planet is producing energy, and by not producing our own, we’re supporting actual dictators with energy production that is exponentially worse for the environment.

Job Creation and Economic Growth: Under Trump, unemployment hit a 50-year low, with millions of jobs created. This helped Americans of all backgrounds find work and improve their financial stability. I felt it. Didn’t you?

Tax Cuts: Trump's tax cuts put more money in the pockets of middle-class families and encouraged businesses to grow and create jobs, boosting the economy.

Higher Wages: Wages grew across the board, particularly for low-income workers, improving the financial outlook for millions of Americans. Trump’s policy of freeing up small businesses from the encumbrances of bureaucracies is a much better way to boost wages of low level employees than raising the minimum wage.

Trade Policies: Trump’s renegotiated trade deals helped protect American jobs, especially in manufacturing, and ensured that the U.S. economy remained competitive globally.