Buyer’s Remorse Regarding Trump

Buyer’s remorse usually refers to when a person makes a significant purchase (house, car, refrigerator, etc.) and the object that was purchased turns out to be defective and/or does not measure up to what was promised in the sales pitch. In politics, buyer’s remorse refers to electing candidates or a political party into office that then does not fulfill their most important campaign promises. Sometimes this remorse shows up in the following election or mid-term elections. Given our desire to have more immediate information, we tend to rely on surveys or polls, especially when the polls are conducted by reliable researchers and when then line up with other polls.

Is there buyer’s remorse regarding Donald Trump? It is important to remember the 2024 presidential election. Trump won a clear majority in the Electoral College, but the popular vote was a different story. Trump received 77,302,580 votes compared with the 75,017,613 with the votes that Harris received. That means Trump obtained 49.8% of the total votes cast and Harris 48.3%. According to the opinion polls, Trump’s approval rate among the general population started slightly above 50% as he began his second term in the White House, but has dropped significantly over the past twelve months. The Fox News poll showed that Americans have 41% approval rate for the job Trump is doing with 59% disapproval. More recent polls are even worse for Trump (CNN’s poll showed a 36% approval rate and the Economist’s poll showed an approval rate of only 35%.) These same polls show an even lower approval rate for specific issues: inflation, ICE, tariffs, the war with Iran, the Epstein files, etc.

This remorse has shown up in elections in this past year. Across the country there have been quite a few elections (governor races, special elections to replace congressional representatives who have retired early or races for state legislatures. There have been thirty such elections in which the incumbent (or the incumbent’s political party) lost. In each case it was a Republican loss and a Democrat gain.

Trump briefly addressed (19 minutes) the nation last night about the war with Iran. His talk was filled with a litany of falsehoods.

Trump has brought inflation down to 0% (False – the latest numbers before the war revealed an inflation rate of above 3% which will certainly rise with gas, diesel price increases due to the war)
He never promised “regime change” in Iran (False – on the first night of the war he announced to the Iranian people, ”When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”)
The rise in the price of gasoline had nothing to do with the war (False – of course this was due to the closing of the Strait of Hormuz which was Iran’s response in the war)

Given that these are clearly false, they were either deliberate lies OR they show that Trump is out of touch with reality.

Although this address was designed to calm the American public regarding the war and its possible ending, the 35% rise in gasoline prices, etc. it did not have its desired effect. Oil prices rose 10% overnight and stock market futures plummeted.

Can any good come out of this buyer’s political remorse? Sadly, it can produce more cynicism and apathy. But if it leads to a genuine change of heart, mind and behavior, it can result in renewal and growth. Here are my hopes and wishes:

That Republicans in Congress grow a backbone and a conscience and vote accordingly.
That Democrats don’t become arrogant as they see the Republicans fall out of favor.
That the president learns from his mistakes and gets the moral and psychological help he needs.

Pope Leo and Secretary Hegseth on Christianity and War: Which One is Closer to Jesus?

In the last several days, the Christian faith has been appealed to as a major motivation for the War with Iran. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth sees the war against Iran as a conflict between Islam and Christianity. In a recent briefing at the Pentagon, Hegseth quoted a verse from Psalm 144: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.” This is in line with his Christian Nationalism, a defective version of Christianity. I believe that this nationalism is a distortion of the gospel message because it conflates the teaching of Jesus with the goals of national or international governments. It is a heresy. It began to permeate Christendom with the “conversion” of Constantine and has reappeared at various times in history (the Crusades,[i] the Spanish Inquisition, the conquest of the Americas, Manifest Destiny, Nazi Germany, and on and on). It is a betrayal of the message that Jesus taught and demonstrated. Jesus taught love for our enemies, not hatred. He told his disciples not to take revenge against their rivals, he told Peter to put away his sword, for those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He taught that “an eye for an eye” should give way to generous love. (Matthew 5:38-42).

Pope Leo XIV waded into the public debate in his Palm Sunday mass: “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.” In a special blessing at the end of Mass, Leo said he was praying especially for Christian believers in the Middle East who are “suffering the consequences of an atrocious conflict. In many cases, they cannot live fully the rites of these holy days.”

Although I strive to follow Jesus, I am not a Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, I think Leo XIV was right on in what he says about Jesus and war. Jesus never approved of war in the Gospels. Our Lord denounced the “rulers of this world” who committed great evil yet claimed it was good. We are NOT to follow their example. (Luke 22:25-26). Jesus showed his followers a better way. The early church sought to be peacemakers and denounced war as an expression of greed. For the first three centuries, up until the time of Constantine, the church was almost universally pacifistic. They affirmed they would die for their faith, but they would not kill for it.i

Some have tried to harmonize Christianity with war through Just War Theory, a series of criteria that must be met before a war is “justified”. The war against Iran utterly fails to meet these criteria: (1) freedom for the Iranian people could be a “Just Cause” but this goal was quickly abandoned; (2) “Formal Declaration” was not met because Congress never gave the legally required authorization nor did the United Nations; (3) “Civii[an Immunity” was not respected as shown by the bombing of the girls’ school in which over 150 little girls were killed; and (4) “last resort” was not followed as the United States broke off the diplomatic negotiations that Trump himself had labeled as fruitful.

Therefore, during this Holy Week, I invite those who claim the name of Jesus for war to reread the Gospels to see what it means to follow the Prince of Peace.

[i] Decades ago, Wheaton College (a conservative Christian academic institution) eliminated the Crusader as their mascot, rightfully deeming it a bad symbol for Christianity. Campus Crusade for Christ eliminated “Crusade” from their name for the same reason. Secretary Hegseth has two Crusade tattoos on his body.

For Better or for Worse: This is Trump’s War. Will He Own It and Take Responsibility?

Over the weekend, President Trump authorized the US military to carry out air attacks by B2 bombers against Iranian nuclear sites. Fighter pilots executed his orders on Saturday. In a speech to the nation later that evening, Trump immediately claimed the attack was a “tremendous success” and that the stockpiles had been “obliterated”! Although the dust was supposed to settle these last three days, more uncertainty and inconsistencies have arisen. Vice-President Vance had to walk back Trump’s “obliteration” claim, by acknowledging that the degree of destruction has yet to be determined. Late on Monday, Trump brokered a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Nevertheless, Israel definitely (and Iran possibly) violated the ceasefire. This morning as he was leaving the White House for his NATO trip to Europe, he responded to questions from reporters. His anger was quite evident. “I am not happy with Israel”, he retorted as he criticized Israel for unloading bombs on Iran making a mockery of his ceasefire. As he walked away, Trump himself dropped the “F” bomb. “Israel and Iran have been fighting for so long and so hard, they don’t know what the F*** they’re doing”.

There is no doubt about it: This is Trump’s war. It was not a war of necessity. It was a war of choice. Trump owns it…for better or for worse. Trump (and those who support this war) must answer some essential questions. Was this attack legal? Why did Trump break his campaign promise to not take the US into another endless war in the Middle East? Did Netanyahu “play” Trump by appealing to his weak ego? Will this attack be similar to the decade-long war in Iraq? If Iran’s government is still in place and still has some uranium stockpiles, is it still a terrorist state? If this conflict escalates and oil prices skyrocket, will Trump take responsibility, or will he blame others?

Was it legal? Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article 1 of the US Constitution. Since the end of WWII, presidents (both Republicans and Democrats) have violated the Constitution, but they gave the appearance of obedience by alerting congressional leaders (usually the “gang of eight”) before attacks had been launched. Trump did not even alert Democrat leaders until after the attack had occurred. It sure seems clear, that the president violated the Constitution.

Although Trump and his supporters deny it, this air attack seems similar to the war in Iraq that began in 2003. In the lead up to both, it was claimed that hostilities would last only a few days. Presidents Bush and Trump mentioned “regime change” as a goal, which would take years…at least. Both presidents appealed to questionable intelligence. Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. According to national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard, Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Trump silenced her. Why?

Predictably, most Republican leaders have supported Trump and his attack. There have been sharp criticisms from some who previously defended Trump on every issue (like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia and a staunch supporter of Trump, broke with the president on this military attack against Iran. She acknowledged that there’s a “very big divide” in the Republican party over the issue and that her position opposing foreign wars is becoming “more popular” among the MAGA base. On Monday she told CNN, “I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change,”. Earlier in the day, in a lengthy post on X, she denounced Trump’s decision to authorize US bombings of Iranian nuclear sites. She claimed it “feels like a complete bait and switch” of his MAGA promises.

Taylor Greene was not the only Republican congressional representative to criticize the president’s decision. Thomas Massie is a conservative congressman from Kentucky. A week ago, prior to the attack, Massie had co-introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution in the House of Representatives in an attempt to restrict the president’s ability to escalate tensions with Iran. “The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States,” Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. “Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.” After Trump announced that the attacks had happened, Massie responded, ”This is not Constitutional”. (Trump reacted not with evidence, but by creating a PAC in Kentucky to try and defeat Massie in the 2026 primary.)

I believe the War Powers Resolution should go forward and be voted on. We should make our cowardly representatives go on the record about this war. Polls taken after the strikes (Reuters, CNN) reveal that a majority of US citizens disapprove of Trump’s attack with only about 44% in favor. Stay tuned for more details.