Political

Politics of many subjects, including schools, funding, testing, representatives, ethics

by

The “Something Rotten” Conspiracy Principle*

As far back as 1950, when Senator Joe McCarthy (R-WI) insisted—without evidence—that the Department of State under Democratic president Harry Truman had been infiltrated by Communists, Republicans have used official investigations to smear their opponents. Heather Cox Richardson, Letters from an American, February 10, 2024.

When the House Republicans began an investigation into the criminality of President Joe Biden, I wondered what criminal behavior they could possibly reveal that was not already known? I truly wondered if the President could be hiding some dangerous behavior.

Two years later, the sound and fury of the investigation continues, yet the Judiciary Committee has uncovered nothing but unfounded accusations and generated some negative press for the President.  I finally realized that the point was not to uncover evidence, but to create the illusion that evidence was forthcoming and to make something stick to the reputation of the President, whether it was true or not. Heather Cox Richardson calls it a “smear” campaign. I would call it a campaign to distract from the bad behavior of the President before Biden or the “Something Rotten” Conspiracy Principle.

President Trump was impeached twice without a conviction. If the Judiciary Committee could threaten to impeach Biden even once, the score would be even, in the minds of Jim Jordan and his gang of eighteen Republicans. Their plan was to churn out innuendoes that something was rotten in the Oval Office, and they  were going to get to the bottom of it. They tried the same strategy with Alejandro Majorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the House refused to impeach him this week, with four Republicans refusing to buy the product.

So it is not so much a smear campaign, but a campaign of “Whataboutism” i.e. the trick of turning any argument against the opponent.  When faced with accusations of corruption, they claim the entire world is corrupt.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism . That’s why it was necessary to campaign against two Democratic officials together– to balance the scales against the considerable corruption of a man with two impeachments on his record.

The former President made the template for “something rotten,” when he pursued the charges of election fraud in 2020 through 62 lawsuits with only one discovering even a minor infraction. Still he pursued his claims just to maintain that uncertainty about fair elections in the voters’ minds. Apparently it worked, because one-third of Americans continue to believe the 2020 election was stolen. These beliefs are based on innuendo and unproven accusations.

Republicans renewed Trump’s “something rotten” strategy with the impeachment campaigns against Biden and Majorkas without uncovering any substantial evidence. By merely investigating they have kept suspicion alive that something sinister (“rotten”) must be happening in Washington,D.C.  Certain citizens love “something rotten” theories,” and investigations add odor to something rotten when it is past its expiration date.

I have to concede that attributing sinister motives to the House Judiciary Committee is a conspiracy theory of my own. And maybe, as House Speaker Mike Johnson claims, the President truly believes the election was stolen from him.  I can only point to the facts of no substantial evidence in any of these cases and the persistence of the former President and the Republican cohorts of the Judiciary Committee to believe what they cannot prove. This dogged pursuit of mere suspicion suggests a mentality favoring suspicion over facts. Suspicions are what keep voting citizens off balance, even turning suspicions into personal convictions.

Americans need to remember the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, even during House investigations.

Certainly the former President remembers it. It has kept him alive through 91 indictments, which rely on more than suspicion to stay fresh in the legal system.

*See Hamlet, Act I, Scene iv: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” [a suspicion, not yet a fact]

 

by

Tales from the Dark World

To politicize anything means to turn it into a weapon for your advantage.  Late in life I realize that anything can be politicized, which is to say: degraded, mocked or utterly corrupted.  It especially sad to see the whole gamut in one week in January.

First, the Taylor Swift fiasco is a mockery of her public image. She has become an “idol” in the religious sense and her followers endangered worshippers. Her involvement in voter registration and her support for former Gov. Phil Bredesen, who was running for the Senate against then-Representative Marsha Blackburn, and Jim Cooper (a House member who has since retired) incited insults from Newsmax host Greg Kelly who said, But I think what they call it is, they’re elevating her to an idol. Idolatry. This is a little bit what idolatry, I think, looks like. And you’re not supposed to do that. In fact, if you look it up in the Bible, it’s a sin! So, I don’t like that.”  [ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/greg-kelly-taylor-swift-fans-idolatry-sin_n_65b907bfe4b0102bd2d62292 ] It may make be spiritual to some, but to me it is mockery of things spiritual. 

The NFL has  been degraded for its politically incorrect pro-vaccine advocacy and its Rooney Rule (mandatory interview with Black candidates for head coaching).  “Cancelling” is not only the prerogative of the p0litical left.  Now the NFL is accused of fabricating the romance of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce for public relations and for a plan for Taylor to announce her support of Democrats during the Super Bowl.

Alison Steinberg, a host on the ultraconservative One America Network, claimed that Swift’s relationship is a “fake, carefully crafted show” meant to get children “obsessed with some grown man who gets paid millions of dollars every year to throw a ball around while promoting poison death shots. 

This allegation credits  the NFL with much more daring than you would expect, since it is run by owners that worry about attendance and image first. To plan this kind of political stunt goes far beyond their risk tolerance, so there is no credibility to that rumor.

Finally, the  complex bill on Israel, Ukraine, and southern border control came out of committee and was immediately savaged by supporters of Donald Trump. The Republican Senator who negotiated the present proposal with funds and executive power is James Lankford of Oklahoma. “There’s political pressure to say, ‘If we fix the border now, then Biden’s suddenly gonna get off the hook and it’ll help his presidential campaign,'” Lankford said. But Lankford, a respected Republican, crafted the compromise bill that would potentially resolve the stalemate over border security. The complaint that it would weaken the immigration case for former President Trump is sadly cynical. Is it possible a candidate for President of the United States would sabotage a bill that would save lives and preserve security just for the arming of his political campaign? Oh yes.  A democratic process could be utterly corrupted.

Apparently everything from passing vital immigration legislation to the idolization of rock stars can be politicized.   It is as if the mere contact with a polarizing issue turns institutions and people into agents of a conspiracy.

In an election year, probably everything can, and will be, politicized, but it doesn’t make it newsworthy. Let the boycotts of the NFL and Taylor Swift concerts begin, but try not to sling mud just to degrade the reputation of every person and institution in sight.

Above all, let important compromises and desperately needed legislation pass without Donald Trump’s blessing. Talk about idolatry, what would you call the Republican Party’s fealty to the former President?  The failure to bargain over legislation in good faith strikes at the heart or democracy. That is what happened at the end of January, when the Mitch McConnell offered that legislation crafted by a member of his own party could not pass without the former President’s blessing. That was a sad day for democracy, indeed.

 

 

by

Enablers of Tyranny

With all the blame for Donald Trump’s rise to power, the last culprits to be accused are his ardent followers. The limitless control of the people’s passion is usually blamed on the tyrant, not on his victims. Pundits see him as a manipulator of the minds of battered citizens, longing for a champion.
But what if the citizens are the enablers?
Enabler: a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another.
What if the people have made Donald Trump what he is, by egging him on with delight of his disdain for the heartless bureaucrats of  Washington?  What if Trump was more the fulfillment of the people’s revenge, their “retribution,” than the ruthless tyrant grasping for control?
This is not to absolve the ex-President for his part in enraging the voter: In The Art of the Deal he confides, “The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people’s fantasies.  People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do.  That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts.  People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular.” [ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/is-passion-meant-for-politics/402457/]. Clearly Trump knows what he is doing.
But as he labors under the weight of huge legal losses, most recently of $83.3 million dollars for defamation of E. Jean Carroll,  as he stammers at his rallies, confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi, as he makes self-defeating threats (“Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the MAGA camp”), he loses stature and becomes the fabrication of the people.
Lately the former President’s public appearances have shown more frustration than unflappable leadership. Viewers are reminded of his age and the burdens he carries, as he exits the courtroom before the charge to the jury in the defamation suit against him. While the  subject of aging is usually applied to the current President, the former one, himself, is 77.
His fuel remains the public passion at his rallies. He comes from them energized and ready to face his enemies in the courtroom. So who is manipulating whom?  Are Trump’s loyal fans generating the zeal for his campaign or are they enabling a driven man, unable to control his ambition? Are they propping up a staggering figurehead, someone on a collision course with disaster?
Shakespeare had insight into the psychology of the tragic politician. In his critical study of Shakespeare’s tyrants,  Stephen Greenblatt speculates:

“How does a figure like Richard III or Macbeth ascend to the throne?

Such as disaster, Shakespeare suggested, could not happen without widespread complicity.  His plays probe the psychological mechanisms that lead a nation to abandon its ideals and even its self-interest. Why would anyone, he asked himself, be drawn to a leader manifestly unsuited to govern, someone dangerously impulsive or viciously  conniving or indifferent to the truth? . . . Why do otherwise proud and self-respecting people submit to the sheer effrontery of the tyrant, his sense that he can get away with saying and doing anything he likes, his spectacular indecency?” Tyrant, pp. 1-2

Greenblatt compared some of the great tyrants in Shakespeare’s repertoire, Richard III, Macbeth, King Lear and Coriolanus, in his study of famed tragic figures.  He found that they were not merely repulsive in their lust for power, but fascinating for their ability to magnetize people to follow them.

The identification with power is as strong as the loathing for it.  Every tyrant has his enablers, hoping to gain by his abuses.  Greeblatt suggests that even the audience to the drama, detached by their safe viewpoint, has a morbid fascination for tyrannical power. They fantasize, as Trump suggests in The Art of the Deal. Regarding Richard III, Shakespeare’s most ruthless and murderous  tyrant, Greeblatt says:

“We are charmed again and again by the villain’s outrageousness by his indifference to the ordinary norms of human decency, by lies that seem to be effective even though no one believes them.  Looking out from the stage. Richard invites us not only to share his gleeful contempt but also to experience for ourselves what it is to succumb to what we know to be loathsome. ” Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics,  pp. 81-82.
As the former President’s devotees play the spectator to an epic drama of a man hurling himself toward tragedy or triumph, they should consider: could we be enablers of a man unable to control himself? Are we using Donald Trump as our proxy for power? Are we testing his limits, because he has inflated ours?  What about the media? Are they complicit in this unraveling tragedy?   Are they enabling the goose that laid the golden egg?  When the goose is exhausted beyond rejuvenation, who gets the blame?
A perspective on the possible fate of the tragic politician.

 

by

Really, Mitch McConnell?

Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News confirmed this evening that although MAGA Republicans have insisted the border is such a crisis that no aid to Ukraine can pass until it is addressed, Trump is preventing congressional action on the border because he wants to run on the issue of immigration. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told a closed meeting of Senate Republicans that “the nominee” wants to run his campaign on immigration, adding, “We don’t want to do anything to undermine him.” “We’re in a quandary,” McConnell said. https://substack.com/home/post/p-141025314?source=queue

Really, Mitch McConnell? You don’t know whether to support a bill that could save the lives of Ukrainians, Palestinians, and immigrants at the southern border, because the rogue, Donald Trump, wants immigration to be HIS campaign issue and supporting it would diminish the effectiveness of HIS campaign?

Do you, Senator McConnell, care about anything beside massaging the ego of a narcissist who calls you “disloyal” any chance he gets?

“Why do Republican Senators allow a broken down hack politician, Mitch McConnell, to openly disparage hard working Republican candidates for the United States Senate?” Trump wrote, following your thoughtful comment that Republicans would have a hard time flipping the Senate in 2022. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3797518-trump-attacks-mcconnell-wife-over-gop-turmoil-after-mccarthy-fails-to-win-speakership/

He further insulted your wife, Elaine Chao, concerning her apparent conflict of interest over her father’s company, the Foremost Group. “This is such an affront to honor and to leadership. He should spend more time (and money!) helping them [Republican candidates] get elected, and less time helping his crazy wife and family get rich on China!”

So now you are willing to scuttle a bill that aids struggling refugees from Texas to Ukraine to Palestine, so that the ex-President has a better  edge on Democrats, who are extending their best compromise to get this aid bill passed. Can you hear yourself, supporting the giant ego of a candidate, who thinks the lives of innocent people are less important than his Presidential campaign?

Perhaps you think being a faithful Party member is more important than your unsinkable pride, but are you really supporting a Party that seeks the trust of the American people or deepening the moral Black Hole who can not fathom the humanity of anyone who stands in his way?  Surely there is a principle that would prevent you from sinking a worthy compromise with so much capacity to help those too weak to help themselves?

You have shown the depths you could plumb by blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court with ten months left till the end of an election year. That was a feat of diabolical strategy that should keep you up at night. Perhaps that is no different than placating a man who will continue to insult you anytime you comment on the obvious, if it is not in his interest to recognize you.

Yet you have shown integrity

  • in rejecting the Election deniers [ https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-electoral-vote/index.html ],
  • emphatically supporting aid to Ukraine, [https://apnews.com/article/mcconnell-ukraine-russia-senate-israel-bf8dc4899d1e99fd186028a387023b57] and
  • supporting moderate gun control [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mitch-mcconnells-support-tougher-gun-laws-reflects-changed-political-l-rcna33537].

Sometimes you look like the only clear-headed adult in your party.

But now you are tarnishing your legacy by putting Trump over democracy. You could be retiring with a resurgent conscience. You could lead the Republican Party when it is so desperate for heroes. You could stand up to a man who rules that Party for his own gratification.

Is it integrity or expedience that animates your political soul? Are you willing to follow the former President into the cesspool of self-interest? Or will you stand for something you believe in, such as compromise for the sake of the suffering people of the earth?  Whom do you serve, Mitch McConnell? God or Mammon?

 

 

 

by

Is Donald Trump a Cult Leader?

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, a “cult” is ” a devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle or lifestyle, especially when regarded as a fad.” The word comes from the Latin “cultus,” meaning “care” or “cultivation.” A cult requires a cultivation of passionate loyalty. Is a cult only a fad? Only time will tell.
Is Donald Trump heading up a cult? It depends on whether you are a member of that cult or a critical observer. Does the leader inspire “devoted attachment” or “exaggerated admiration.”?
First: the ability to convince the cult members that the  truth is a lie.
  • He said 250 million attended  his Inauguration
  • other observers estimated 250,000. The Park Service photos showed a  sparse crowd
  • Speaking to the President of Ukraine: He made the “perfect phone call,”
  •  The recording reveals: He made foreign aid  conditional to an investigation of Biden’s influence on energy companies in Ukraine
  • He made the “perfect”phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger,
  • In the recording of the call he says: “I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes”
  • He won the Presidential election of 2020
  • The Electoral Count was Biden 306 – Trump 232, confirmed by 61 judicial cases

The ability to make millions of voters consistently believe the opposite of what is true is the power of a cult leader.

Next: the ability to command

  • the disregard of a string of two impeachments and 91 criminal indictments
  • the acceptance of anti-democratic goals: “retribution” on his enemies, threats to command unconstitutional power, and a refusal to accept an electoral defeat.
  •   the loyalty of people of faith in spite of his open contempt for his opponents, his encouragement of violence to support his cause, and his abuse of women in documented legal cases

Next: the conditions that enable a cult leader

“Verywell Mind” enumerates the traits of a cult leader at the site  https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-cult-5078234 .
  • Absolute authoritarianism 

“. . . you’re not going to be a dictator; are you? I said, no, no, no, other than Day 1.      [https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2023/12/06/trump-comments-dictator-campaign-president-2024/]

As Ruth Ghiat argues in her book Strongmen, dictators learn the authoritarian skills of governing from each other:

The leader’s displays of machismo and his kinship with other male leaders are not just bluster, but a way of exercising power at home and conducting foreign policy. Virility enables corruption, projecting the idea that the Strongman is above laws that weaker individuals must follow. It translates into state policies that target women and LGBTQ+ populations, who are as much the Strongman’s enemies as civil prosecutors or the press. (pp. 7-8)

Apparently this image of a man controlling other men and women appeals to cult members. They feel secure in the leadership of a virile, powerful figure. They believe the former President will exercise the same control of people he showed on “The Apprentice,” and that appeals to their sense of order.  “Democracy” almost seems like a weak form of government, where bureaucrats can control people by their secret maneuvers. The Strongman offers security that the enemies of the people will be defeated.

  • Without accountability  “When reporters asked Trump whether any governor agreed that he had total authority to countermand their orders, he answered: “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them. Mostly, that would be – you know, they would be out of business.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/trump-revenge-second-term/

The former President has shown ruthless temperament, which he promises will be “your retribution.” In the quotation above he projects his power over governors who resist him, as they did during the pandemic in New York, California, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Under a new Trump administration, the powers of governors could be nullified by the President’s “Emergency Powers.” This wielding of power against his opposition appeals to those who feel liberals and the “Deep State” are blocking reform. They don’t care how the President nullifies them; they just want their policies executed. The ends justify the means.

  • Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget. Regarding his business disclosures, “I have a clause in there [in real estate declarations] that says, ‘Don’t believe the statement. Go out and do your own work.’ This statement is ‘worthless.’ It means nothing,” Trump testified. Given the disclaimer, he said, “you’re supposed to pay no credence to what we say whatsoever.” http://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-civil-lawsuit-fraud-88379aaf16849c255365ff871384ff7e

Trump’s supporters hold him blameless for profiting from the government, something that would be roundly condemned for previous presidents. He has profited richly from foreign states-men /-women staying at his hotels in Washington, New Jersey and Mara Largo. While this is defined as “corruption” in most cases, Trump’s supporters believe his refusal to draw a salary ($400.000) balances the fact that he has profited in billions while President.

 The Trump Hotel in DC defied all expectations to quickly turn a profit despite charging well above most other DC hotels. People who wished to influence the president—lobbyists, politicians, foreign and state governments—paid a premium to see and be seen at the Trump Hotel, rubbing elbows with the president and his closest advisers. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/trump-reported-making-more-than-1-6-billion-while-president/

  • Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions.  Regarding immigrants: “We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country. It’s so bad, and people are coming in with disease. People are coming in with every possible thing that you could have.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-immigration-rhetoric.html

The demonizing of immigrants has been the core of Donald Trump’s appeal. It is not merely the regulation of immigration that fuels political controversy, but the treatment of illegals and legals alike.  Many of the disciples of the former President approved of his confining immigrants in cages and separating them from their children, because immigrants were dehumanized during his administration. They were a threat to the American way of life.

The website www.verywellmind.com displays numerous characteristics of a cult, twelve in total, too many for mention here. They show a pattern of ruthless authority and emotional appeal enhancing the charismatic and uncompromising leader.

Finally, a reflection on the loyalty of people of faith

As a former Evangelical Christian, I understand how faith can make a follower tenaciously loyal. Faith may demand we persevere with our devotion despite the circumstances. It was faith that allowed the early Christians to remain loyal despite the torture and execution of the Roman Empire.

Devoted Christians may imagine that our democracy today is no better than the pagan ruthlessness of the Roman Empire. Their devotion does not pay attention to flaws or recognize the angry, vindictive nature of a despot. Looking for a champion, they have found one in Trump.  Just as persecuted Christians stood up to oppressive governments before, nothing will shake their faith in a man who promises defeat of all their enemies. The end justifies the means. Yet is that Christian morality?

Unshakable faith is sublime. It has revered many martyrs and religious figures who stand up to tyrants. It represents boundless dedication and yet . . .

Faith in God is one thing;  faith in a cult? That’s another.

 

 

 

by

Iowa Stubborn

And we’re so by God stubborn
We could stand touchin’ noses
For a week at a time
And never see eye-to-eye

(Meredith Wilson, “The Music Man”)

The  Music Man was an affectionate tribute to the state of Iowa, as well as the story of a con man turned straight. It turned the corrupt plan of a huckster into a conversion story of a man changed by good-hearted people.  Still, these good-hearted people had a stubborn streak, illustrated by the opening song, “Iowa Stubborn,” (see above) a self-deprecating, yet self-satisfied tribute to the state.

Iowa proved faithful to its reputation Monday, in that, with all of the ardent campaigning and lavish investment of funds, the candidates emerged pretty much as they started in the polls.  Donald Trump, the front-runner, came into Iowa for a couple of cups of coffee and spent most of his time defending himself against felony charges in New York.  How did that affect Iowa’s support? He was an overwhelming victor with 51% of the vote–about what he had coming into the state.

Ron Desantis spent $35 million, more than a third of his campaign bank account. He campaigned in every county in the state. He received the endorsement of Governor Kim Reynolds. He might have gained two percentage point with 21.5% of the vote in Iowa. What must the Governor think of her political credibility? Probably she’s thinking, Well, that’s Iowa Stubborn for you.

Nikki Haley reserved $4.6 million for the final two weeks of the Iowa campaign, twice as much as Desantis, yet she finished with 19.3% of the Iowa vote  [ https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-spend-100-million-iowa-ads-come-rcna130856]. She did rise in the national polls, but most observers credit her performance in the Primary debates for that improvement. Iowa was unimpressed.

Stubbornness can be detected by several symptoms, according to “Strong Opinions, Loosely Held” [https://www.solhapp.com/blog/how-to-identify-a-stubborn-person]. How do these match up to Iowa voters? Unfortunately no one has administered this test in Iowa. However we could take the informed opinion of composer of “The Music Man,” Meredith Wilson, a born-and-bred Iowan.

1. Refusal to Change – “We could stand touchin’ noses/ For a week at a time /And never see eye-to-eye”

2. Rigidity-  “We could stand touchin’ noses/” (see above)

3. Difficulty in Compromise:   “There’s an Iowa kind of special Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude”

4. Resistance to Authority – “You really ought to give Iowa a try/ Provided you are contrary”

.5. Defensive Behavior: “special Chip-on-the-shoulder attitude”

This musical profile of Iowans should be studied by every future campaigner in Iowa before they lay out one third of their campaign war chest and several months of retail campaigning in the Hawkeye State.  Learn from Ron Desantis.

The challenge of changing minds might be attributed to how the stubborn person changes vices into virtues. in another blog I imagined how a stubborn person would interpret the behaviors listed above.

 Why do we find it difficult to “compromise” in politics and religion? Because we know we’re right and compromising means “giving in.”  Why do (we) believe in “resistance to authority”? Because authority can not be trusted. Better to rely on yourself. What is wrong with “rigidity”? Isn’t it just another word for “courage of your convictions”? https://wtucker.edublogs.org/2023/12/26/the-power-of-stubbornness/

No argument will convince stubborn people, because, in their minds, stubbornness is an admirable trait.  Meredith Wilson captured it in his ensemble opening to the “Music Man,” but he redeemed Iowans as good-hearted and caring people in his immortal musical.  Unfortunately there is no room for “good-heartedness” at the Iowa Caucuses.  In the opening words of “Iowa Stubborn,” Wilson says.

Oh, there’s nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you

When we greet you

Which we may not do at all

The Republican campaigners in Iowa can say to this a hearty “Amen.”  And the Republican Party may want to reconsider whether Iowa sends the right message to those who hope campaigning can change their status in the endless trial of winning the nomination for President.

 

by

Sincerity Not Symbolism

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon                                                       us,  our parents, our teachers and our Country.”                                         (prayer required by the New York Board of Regents, 1951-1962)

When I was fourteen the Supreme Court scandalized the Protestant and Catholic community by ruling that required recitation of the above prayer was a a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) I was fifteen, and I remember thinking, Good riddance to that useless prayer.

My parents and their friends moaned about how the government was taking prayer out of the public schools. When the issues of  drugs and racial strife were grabbing headlines, it was because “the government has taken prayer out of the schools.” I was reciting that prayer when I was seven years old, but I am pretty sure I didn’t know what “acknowledge our dependence on thee” meant until I was eleven. I got A’s in English.

I was a regular in Sunday School my whole twelve years of public schooling. I can recite the Regents prayer from memory, but I have never missed reciting it in school. Probably because I recited it every day. Same with “My Country, ‘t is of Thee.” When did I figure out ” ‘t is” , meant “It is” and that the “It is” referred to the words “of thee sing” later in the sentence. I never gave it much thought. 

Obviously I had issues with memorizing things, but I had a reason. Most words, after you say them too many times, lose their importance. For some reason adults thought that memorizing them enhanced their meaning. If you recited something, you had to internalize it.

That version of literacy died out about 160 years ago with the rise of written literacy.  Most words you memorize give you indigestion, unless the words have special meaning, for example the 23rd Psalm or the lyrics of “The Sounds of Silence”.

And yet Christians fondly remember when we started every single school day with the same prayer and the same song.  It kept us grateful when we were eight years old during the 1950’s, the good old days. I was not a very grateful kid, and I was raised in a devout household. Reciting that prayer, singing that song, did nothing for me.

The 1960’s were the beginning of Christian grievance politics. A succession of Supreme Court rulings made Christians feel victimized. They took the Bible out of the schools with

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
School-sponsored Bible reading before class is unconstitutional. 

Then they took the Ten Commandments out of the public square

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)                                                                                                                                                      The “Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact,”

Then they  ruled against the broadcast of a prayer from the school’s public address system

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000)
Students may not use a school’s loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer.

And the same practices were overruled when school boards convened (Coles v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ), and when coaches initiated prayer at football games (Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Twp. of East Brunswick).

I consider myself a devout Christian. I pray every day, but not in public display. Jesus actually frowned on that ((Matthew 6:5). Observances like loudspeaker prayer, Bible reading before class, and display of religious texts and symbols do not inspire spirituality. They are observances to show whose religion gets public endorsement.

The enforced observance of religious practices is a travesty of prayer or contemplation. It turns spirituality into meaningless rote practice and sets a pathetic example for honoring a religion or its God. It assumes that faith is communicated by repetition ad nauseum, until the recitation breaks down the resistance of the reciter. That would be the premise of television advertising, not for a religion desiring sincere reverence or  conversion.

 When Christians complain that the government is taking religion out of our lives, I wonder what they think religion is, a symbolic or a sincere practice? If it is no more than a symbolic practice, then I wonder if protesting its removal from public spaces is less from religious conviction, than from political grievance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

Indoctrination is not Good Teaching

What a sad day when a school board eliminates Black Literature and Black History, because of “ideological indoctrination,” as if school is a place to be indoctrinated.  The school board assumes that a course indoctrinates student by mere exposure, rather than by how the curriculum is taught.

If there are specific objections to a teaching methodology the school board should comment on observed examples of “indoctrination,”  defining how a racial agenda is delivered in the classroom. No teacher should indoctrinate any students, regardless of the political purpose. Teachers are not trained to indoctrinate students, but to get them to think.

What any secondary curriculum teaches is critical reading, where students recognize the ideologies through discussion and written responses. No secondary student is supposed to digest an ideology without evaluating it. If you read Huckleberry Finn with numerous examples of the “N” word,  does that make Mark Twain a racist? That is a debatable question, and students learn by reading critically to decide why Twain used the word.

Is All Quiet on the Western Front an anti-war novel or a realistic account of World War I from the viewpoint of German soldiers?  Students can argue both ways. That is the point of reading controversial literature: to articulate your own interpretation, discuss it and defend it. You don’t become an anti-war activist by reading All Quiet. You identify the ideology and decide if you agree with it. It is worth mentioning that the novel and its sequel The Road Back were banned and burned during the Third Reich. Now that was a book with ideology!

How about Pygmalion by that feminist and socialist George Bernard Shaw, and which later became My Fair Lady? What a loss for the literature curriculum to eliminate that book, and yet it is full of satire on the wealthy, patriarchal class in England in the 20th century. No one expects that play to indoctrinate students, so we give George Bernard Shaw a pass.

Yes, Black literature and Black history are ideological curricula. They would not be worth reading if they weren’t. The writing of Frederick Douglas, W.E.B Dubois, and Ida B. Wells is some of the timeless historical prose of our culture. They all had something to say about enslavement and prejudice. Of course they were ideological! Reading them does not have to be indoctrination.

Are school administrators so helpless and gullible that they assume to read is to be brainwashed? It calls into question the education these leaders experienced. Are they the kind of student who wrote down everything the teacher said then regurgitated it back on their exams?  Did they use this system all the way through college and graduate school to keep their grades up? Is that what they think education is?

So the bottom line is that the Francis Howell school board does not want its students even exposed to the culture of Black America, because they don’t trust them to read Black authors without getting indoctrinated. Sad for the loss of a valuable culture, but sadder still that the school board thinks so little of its students and teachers that they don’t give them credit for reading critically and identifying the ideological substructure in history and literature.

Education is about asking the right questions and hearing thoughtful responses. It is not about avoiding the wrong ideas for fear of indoctrination.

N.B. The school board restored Black studies to the curriculum, later that week, but insisted the curriculum of the Southern Poverty Law Center could not be used.

 

by

Theories of Relativity

“What-about-ism” continues to thrive under the leadership of Republicans in Congress. The impeachment inquiries against President Biden are no more than an attempt to lower the bar for voting for Donald Trump.

In a comparison of candidates for President, the checklist of qualifications tells a sad story for Donald Trump. Let’s look at a few of the categories for Biden vs. Trump. Constructive aid for CoVid passed? Biden, Yes – Trump, No. Infra-structure bill passed? Biden, Yes – Trump, No. Expanded medical care? Biden, Yes – Trump, No.  Support for military and vets? Biden, Yes – Trump, No. Strengthening international alliances? Biden, Yes – Trump, Heck No!

How about character? Bipartisan gestures? Biden, Yes – Trump, No. Positive campaigning? Biden, yes – Trump, No.  Empathy for victims of tragedy and disaster? Biden, yes – Trump, No. Respect for women? Biden, yes – Trump, Only the sexy ones. Integrity? Biden, yes – Trump, no.

How about Impeachment? Biden, it’s inevitable – Trump, yes (twice) Oh, so there’s a tie in one category, one engineered by the House Judiciary Committee under a Republican majority? So, on the most serious matter, one that implies the President has failed on all the others, Biden and Trump are tied?

This is a quality standard we can all get behind?? It is sad to believe the American voter will get behind that standard. Yet former President Trump always appeals to that relativistic principle in his campaigns for President. “If you think I’m bad, you should see the other guy!”

Relativism, which goes back to the Greek Sophists, is the idea that nothing is really true in itself, but only by comparison with other things.  So if I steal something, and you catch me at it, I could say, “What about the time you stole . . . ” And that would prove that I wasn’t wrong to steal.

[Sophists are considered the founding fathers of relativism in Western philosophy. Protagoras said: “What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me.”[25][26][27]

What surprises is that  some evangelicals and Roman Catholics, who would abhor relativism in every other case, are not bothered when the former President frames a relativistic excuse: What about Clinton, Biden, the Democrats, the Rino’s” –and anyone else  else who seems to reflect his own bad character? The justification for all bad behavior named by Trump’s critics is that someone, somewhere is doing the same thing. Therefore, Donald Trump is guiltless.

When someone uses the word “truth” sincerely, for example in court, in church, even in politics, that person implies that there is some standard of truth that can back him or her up.  They mean that it is commonly accepted that certain things are true, and you could not claim that something is false, merely because anyone else might contradict it. We often use “truth” to mean we can support our claims with fair arguments, not as absolute truths, but with valid evidence or proof.

Relativists, and Donald Trump has to be in that number, will always claim that there is no universal truth, so there can be no truth at all, even when people lie. That is a dangerous argument, and it is the premise for all of Donald Trump’s defenses of his own behavior– someone is behaving worse.

Now the highest legislative body in the land is resorting to that standard of truth, when they try to impeach the President. If he can be impeached, then he is no better than Donald Trump.   A low bar indeed, but it appears that possibly half the nation is resorting to that standard to justify supporting Donald Trump–he is no worse than the others.

If we can be honest, and not cynically relativistic in our judgments, we would have to admit that just because someone is impeached, it does not make him equal with someone else who has been impeached. A majority of the House of Representatives can not prove that morality is relative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

by

The Paradox of Stubbornness

Why do sports fans stay faithful to a team that has cheated, been mismanaged, and insensitive to fans?  Why do church members remain faithful to an established denomination that has been mysogynistic, discriminatory, and insensitive to followers? Why do voters remain faithful to a politician, recognized as fraudulent,  contemptuous, heedless of the rule of law?

Are these followers loyal, resolute, or just plain stubborn? The attitude of consistent and unwavering loyalty can be defended if it reflects a commitment to a church or nation, and yet unwavering support can also be interpreted as stubbornness. How do you define it?

1. Refusal to Change: A stubborn person often refuses to change their opinion, even when presented with facts or new information. They tend to cling to their beliefs, regardless of how much evidence contradicts them.

2. Rigidity: A stubborn person can be very inflexible in their approach to things. They may insist on doing things a certain way, without considering any other options. They tend to be very resistant to change and may become angry or defensive when challenged.

3. Difficulty in Compromise: A stubborn person finds it hard to compromise with others, even if it’s necessary for the situation. They may feel like they are always right and that their way is the only way. This inflexibility can make it hard for them to work with others and create a cooperative environment.

4. Resistance to Authority: A stubborn person may be very resistant to authority. They may challenge or question rules and regulations and may struggle to follow them. They may feel like they know better than those in charge and may resist any attempts to control or direct them.

5. Defensive Behavior : A stubborn person can be very defensive when challenged. They may feel like they are being attacked and become angry or hostile. They may try to justify their behavior or beliefs, even if it’s obvious they are in the wrong. https://www.solhapp.com/blog/how-to-identify-a-stubborn-person

Ironically if you’re stubborn, none of these characteristics seem negative to you. Why do we find it difficult to “compromise” in politics and religion? Because we know we’re right and compromising means “giving in.”  Why do some voters believe in “resistance to authority”? Because authority can not be trusted. Better to rely on yourself. What is wrong with “rigidity”? Isn’t it just another word for “courage of your convictions”?

That is why a stubborn person is invincible: no rational pleas or offering other loyalties can shake the stubborn person free of his or her convictions.  It is an unassailable position because it’s very nature is to reject alternatives. It is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The hypothesis that so many remain loyal to Donald Trump, because of stubbornness makes logical sense, but it is impossible to test, because the stubborn person defends his or her rights by turning a flaw into a virtue. It is an alternate universe where everything that psychology and religion consider a characteristic flaw becomes an indisputable loyalty.

This is the only explanation I can come up with to explain why so many evangelical Christian believers cling to Donald Trump despite many confirmations that he is disloyal, vengeful, immoral, and fraudulent. As Trump diverges from Christian values, loyalties stretch further and further to accommodate him. The elasticity of these loyalties keeps the true believer connected to the true narcissist.  There is no logic or scandal that can disconnect this loyalty.

One of the horrors of evangelical Christians used to be “moral relativism,” the idea that we are not wrong as long as others do the same thing.  Evangelicals of my generation (boomer) were taught to hold their standards against the immoral standards of “the world.” Sex before marriage was a significant prohibition because it was widely accepted in the world. So we practiced moral absolutism. We stood our ground against moral relativism.

This belief has given way to “what-about-ism,” because Donald Trump cannot be defended unless you accuse his opponents of the same thing.  Moral relativism is now widespread among radical evangelicals, because as long as they can claim Joe Biden is as corrupt as Donald Trump, they can justify Trump.

Donald Trump may be responsible for the slip from moral absolutism to moral relativism, and especially for evangelicals.  He has become an acceptable standard for morality because his Christian followers have compromised their values to bring him into their sphere of approval.   If you had predicted this move in the 1990’s Christians would be appalled.  The rigidity of stubbornness has allowed our morals to stretch. How is that for ironic?

Or maybe Christians were moral relativists before Donald Trump emerged on the national scene. It was our compromising our values that made way for such an admired public figure. Is Donald Trump the chicken or the egg?  Have some Christians allowed their morality to cave so that the way was clear for the Trump miracle of 2016?

That answer is beyond my pay grade, as are most answers. So I ponder what has perpetuated the adherence to Trump among a tight group of evangelicals. I can hardly see any cause but stubbornness.  But one person’s “stubbornness” is another person’s “loyalty.”

And there goes the neighborhood of moral standards, as the “what-about’s?” move in.