Glenn read an opinion piece on air Wednesday that he likened to The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, a masterpiece of satire described as wildly comic, deadly serious and strikingly original.
"I want to take you to a modern-day Screwtape Letter written by Erick Erickson today," Glenn said. "If you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump --- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I --- but I want you to listen to this."
Erickson's op-ed showed his thoughtful analysis of the two candidates. His conclusion? We definitely have a savior, but which one will it be?
Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:
• Why does Erick Erickson think he's in a no-win position?
• How would a Hillary Clinton presidency be completely anti-American?
• What caused Erickson to actively reconsider his opposition to Trump?
• If God chose Abraham, Samson and David to lead, should we choose Trump?
• What did Erickson decide after reconsidering?
Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:
Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:
Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:
GLENN: So it's very interesting. I read an op-ed piece today by Erick Erickson that I want to talk about. Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. And if you're opposed to Donald Trump, I want you to listen to this. And if you're opposed to, you know, not voting for Donald Trump -- I know you're not going to vote for Hillary Clinton, nor am I. But I want you to listen to this.
Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump. Now, the point on this that I want to make has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but the conversation that came from this article had something to do with something much, much bigger than Donald Trump.
Listen to this: Reconsidering my opposition to Donald Trump by Erick Erickson.
The polling has drawn even closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are Never Trump should finally yield, knowing that we can now beat Hillary Clinton.
I'm in an odd position. I'm mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump.
Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to people like Donald Trump. And Trump supporters will blame people like me for his lost. So I suppose I should say that I'm not in an odd position: I'm in a no-win position.
With Donald Trump's rise in the polls and increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton's candidacy as anti-American.
I realize that saying Hillary Clinton's candidacy in my view is anti-American offends some or comes off as hyperbole, but I think her candidacy is fundamentally an anathema to and is fundamentally in opposition to the basic historic American values. I believe the Founders of this country recognized individual liberty as negative liberty. It wasn't what individuals could do if the government could help them make this country great. Rather, it was what individuals could do if the government left them alone.
Hillary Clinton's vision of a Leviathan nanny state runs counter to all of those ideals. She would expand the government, engage the government in social experimentation, and she would advance the agenda of the sexual revolution against the church.
I am under no delusions: With Clinton as president, the church in this country will be in for difficult times. The siege from the outside, the forces of Mordor, will be fully on the march.
That's -- anybody disagree with that? Because I agree with that 100 percent.
JEFFY: So far.
GLENN: With Hillary Clinton, the Supreme Court will fall into the hands of the left for a generation at least. The devastation -- listen to this -- the devastation to our social fabric will know no end. Trading in the idea of negative liberty, Clinton and a left-wing Supreme Court will pursue expansionist federal policies and concepts of positive liberty, which will advance the individual prurient interests of deviance against the church in the way Founders could not have anticipated and no rational person would think wise. But Clinton as president will mean the insane have taken over the asylum.
Anybody disagree with any of that?
Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, quote, what was once stigmatized --
JEFFY: That's what I mean.
GLENN: Anybody take a guess who she is.
JEFFY: You cannot disagree with Himmelfarb.
PAT: No, you can't.
GLENN: You can guess who she is.
PAT: We don't have to guess. Glenn, we've talked about that --
JEFFY: Glenn.
GLENN: She wrote a very important book that you all should read.
Anyway, what was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned. What was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized.
As deviancy is normalized, so what was normal now becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral, the bourgeoisie family, as it is now called, is now seen as pathological.
PAT: We've been saying that so long, we call it Himmelfarbian.
JEFFY: Right. Yeah, we are part of the Himmelfarbians.
GLENN: The Clinton presidency will lock that in.
Is there any disagreement with that?
PAT: True. No, that's --
GLENN: What they've done -- by the way, she wrote a book about the Hitler era. And I can't remember the name of it. But look it up. Very famous book.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: And she is -- she was taking it apart and saying, "Here's how it happened, and here's how it can happen again." And that is describing that society and our society.
PAT: Uh-huh.
STU: Yeah. Go ahead tell the Himmelfarb society about the fact that she wrote a book about Nazi Germany. Good idea. We know --
PAT: Don't talk --
GLENN: Okay. In addition to that, the increasingly illiberal left will further capitulate in the forces of evil, choosing to surrender to radical Islamists blowing themselves up as a new normal.
By the way, this is Erick Erickson writing, I think we all need to take a step back and reconsider. Especially if you are a Never Trumper, we have to look at the facts. Fix reason firmly in her seat.
In short, I see the election of Hillary Clinton as the antithesis of all of my values and ideas on what fosters sound civil society in this country. Furthermore, I think she should be in jail.
Anybody disagree?
PAT: No.
GLENN: At least with Trump, he writes --
PAT: I mean, she might get a trial first.
GLENN: She should get a trial.
PAT: Yes.
GLENN: At least with Trump, we might -- might get a better Supreme Court. We might get better cabinet picks. In fact, in terms of my view of the country, the odds are pretty great that my side has a greater chance of prevailing with Trump than with Clinton.
I don't agree with that. But that's interesting.
What --
PAT: And that's the argument we hear all the time.
GLENN: Yes.
PAT: Supreme Court.
GLENN: He believes that.
What most would identify as my side would have control of the executive branch and the powers of appointment and regulation that come with it. Oh, I see what he's saying.
What he deems his side would because they would control all three branches.
PAT: Yes. Right.
GLENN: So I should at least here and now as the race draws close, reconsider my opposition to Trump.
The truth is, with the headlines about the Clinton's emails, terrorist attacks, Obama administration's advancement of transgenderism in the military, I have been actively reconsidering my opposition to Trump. I've done it in conversations with friends, in prayer, in quiet time, dedicated to considering the future.
So did he reconsider, and did he change his point of view? In a second.
Real quick, Himmelfarb is not the woman I was thinking of. I was thinking of another woman with a funny name, and I can't remember her name. Himmelfarb, we looked it up in the middle of the break, is Bill Kristol's mom, which no idea.
But, anyway, so Erick Erickson says, "We really need to -- as this race comes this close -- to reconsider the opposition to Trump if you are a Never Trumper."
I'm a Never Clinton guy, and I'm a Never Trumper. And so far, everything that he has written about Hillary Clinton I believe is absolutely true. She is -- she is poison -- poison to the republic.
Here's what he writes: In doing so, I have to admit that while I view Hillary Clinton's campaign as anti-American, I view Donald Trump's campaign as un-American.
Now, listen to this.
The American spirit eschews the idea of a strongman in Washington fixing all of our problems. We're supposed to be against the imposition of values set by Washington. Instead, we should embrace our heterogeneity as people. Not only does Donald Trump not do that, but his views pervert the liberal order of things, as much as Clintonian illiberalism. Clinton offers a tyranny of the minority. Trump offers a tyranny of the majority.
Clinton offers neither safety nor freedom, and Trump offers safety at the expense of freedom. While I see Clinton as having no virtue, I see Donald Trump corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism. More importantly, while I think Hillary Clinton will do long-term damage to the country, I believe that Donald Trump -- writes Erick Erickson -- will do far more damage to the church, and that is my priority.
A Clinton administration may see the church besieged from the outside, but a Trump administration will see the church poisoned from within. I see it happening even now.
This past Friday, I debated the merits of Trump and sat next to a Christian who argued that because God chose sinners -- I can't -- this argument, I hear all the time -- we should choose Trump. She argued that a bunch of other presidents were terrible, immoral people, and we should be okay with Trump. She argued that God chose Abraham, Samson, and David, so we should choose Trump.
I don't recall John F. Kennedy writing books, bragging about his affairs. I don't recall Bill Clinton telling a television audience that he wanted to have sex with his daughter. How far a Christian must fall to justify the low morals of a man by tearing down the reputation of others, is sometimes exaggerated manners?
I do recall God choosing Abraham, Samson, and David, and all of them repenting for their sins. That repentance stands in studied contrast to Donald Trump, who has three times said that he has never had to ask for forgiveness. And he only recently said his advance of the church, if elected, would be the only thing that gets him into heaven.
When I see Christians defining deviancy down to justify political decisions, I see a real problem for the church. When I see Christians saying that we have the license to choose bad men because God chooses bad men, I see the sparks of apostasy.
Many of my friends have turned themselves over to the anger of Trump displays. I see my friends on Twitter in meltdown tweeting profanity to others, spending their time on radio attacking friends by name for refusing to yield. That's not healthy.
Not only is it not healthy, it reeks of desperation. This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God our Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress and keep one's self unstained by the world, James said.
Trump has openly championed funding an organization that would murder the would-be orphan and sell his organs, while he cheated widows and single moms of their money. And more and more Christians are championing these stains while staining themselves. The level of fear many of my friends have towards what a Clinton administration may bring has turned to desperation and desire for a protector.
But we already have one. Neither in life nor death, angels or rulers, nor present things nor to come, nor powers, nor height, depth, nor anything else in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God and Christ Jesus.
So many pastors who email me and beg me to reconsider and so many others who write do so because they think this is the last chance to get the nation right. They think we'll turn a corner after which we cannot turn back. While I can see they might be right, what I see is a level of desperation, causing them to place their trust in one strong man instead of God and in truth. I do not concede that they're right, but I have concluded, we are already past the point of redemption when the best either party can do is offer up Clinton or Trump.
We are beyond the point of looking to five black-robed masters to save us from ourselves. When we put up Clinton or Trump, the seriousness and virtue of the voter is in the grave already, and my Christian brethren for Trump yearn for an idolized path that neither never existed and in the future that is not theirs but rather God's to shape.
Christians looking for a strong man to protect the church instead of the strongest man to conquer death is a terrible thing to see. Many Christian leaders are engaging in trying to blame patriotism to Christianity. They seemingly argue that if the nation falls, the church falls. And for the church to rise, the country must rise.
But Christ has already risen. The true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.
He goes -- he goes on. And I believe this is so well reasoned and so well thought out. Now, you may not agree with it. But it is at least a cogent argument and a statement of principles.
Featured Image: Erick Erickson
