Author: Barb Woolard

COVID Has a Face

Around 25 years ago, my then-husband and I hosted a gathering one evening at our home. We invited several other couples with whom we spent three or four hours eating, talking, and laughing until we cried. As the party was breaking up, one of the men present received a phone call from his younger son, informing him that his older, twenty-five-year-old son had died earlier that evening when the motorcycle he was riding was struck by a car.

Standing in my family room, I watched as the shock registered on the man’s face and in his body. He jumped into the air and did a slight pivot before planting his feet and bending slightly forward in deadly earnest as he listened to the words coming through the phone line. His first verbal response was “NO! Don’t tell me!” I continued to watch as his wife was brought from another room and he gently seated her in a chair, then knelt before her to break the news that her beloved son was no longer living. I watched her face as she registered the shock and went immediately into the denial stage of grief, shaking her head and repeating over and over, “No, not my Richard. Not my Richard.”

I watched as the other guests gathered around them and began offering comfort and support. One of the men volunteered to drive them home, while another said he would deliver their vehicle for them. A few days later, my husband and I walked with them into the room where they would for the first time see their son in his casket. I saw them catch their breath and turn their faces away as they got their first glimpse of his lifeless body, then move closer and hold each other while they both wept.

From that day until this, I have never read a headline reporting a traffic accident in the same way I had read those headlines before. We see them every week, and we feel a certain level of compassion and sympathy. “Oh, that’s terrible. His/her poor family.” But it’s hard to hold onto that compassion or even to experience it at a very deep level when the victim has no face, when the grieving family are just names in the obituary. What that evening did for me was put a face on the headline “25-year-old Man Killed in Accident.” Now when I read similar stories, I see my friend hearing for the first time of his son’s death; I see his wife who for ten minutes couldn’t stop shaking her head and moaning “No, not my Richard.” Dick and Penny are for me the real people whose real suffering gives such stories meaning and impact.

Like everyone else in the country, I read each day and listen each night to the day’s grim statistics: number of new COVID infections, number of deaths on that day, and total number of deaths so far. Also like almost everyone else, I find it a bit hard to be appropriately compassionate toward faceless numbers. I haven’t personally known any of those people, so they’re just vague, faceless statistics. Heartbreaking, yes. Frightening, definitely. Reason for taking precautions, absolutely. But I don’t know them; they’re people “out there” somewhere.

All of that changed, however, in the wee hours of Christmas morning, 2020, when one of my high school classmates lost his battle against the virus. Now COVID has a face: the face of John Mathes. I’d been following John’s progress for a little over a month, as he was placed on a ventilator three times and then removed when there were signs he was going to beat the illness, as he was moved into and out of ICU several times, then to a rehab center, and then back to the hospital. Finally, at 12:30 a.m., as Christmas Eve faded into Christmas morning, in his wife’s words, John was just too tired to fight any longer.

I haven’t seen much of John since high school, but I received updates through mutual friends, saw him and his wife at a couple of class reunions, and for the last few years communicated through Facebook. After graduation, we went different routes: I went off to college and then to various other cities, while he put down deep roots in our home soil. Within a couple of years, he had married our fellow classmate Sharon Warling, and they spent the next 50+ years creating a loving family and being a vital part of our hometown community.

Now when I read the number of daily COVID deaths, I’ll see John lying in a hospital bed, attached to a ventilator. I’ll see Sharon, mostly at home because of visiting limitations necessary for such a highly contagious disease, praying for the miracle that would bring her husband back to her. I’ve never met their three daughters or any of their grandchildren and great grandchildren, but they have lost the rock of their family and must find a way to bring stability back to their own lives while supporting their mother and grandmother as she learns to navigate her new normal and find new meaning and direction, without the partner with whom she’d shared her entire adult life.

John Mathes is more than a number on a list of statistics, more than just one of the 300,000+ people who have succumbed to the ravages of this virus. He’s the guy who played golf in high school and beyond, who always had a big smile on his face, who married Sharon, one of the Catholic school girls who joined us at the public school in ninth grade. They had three daughters, were among the first of us to become grandparents, and may have been the very first to become great grandparents.

John and Sharon are the ones who took over the job of keeping our class united after Eve–the classmate who organized most of our reunions–died. They sent out emails and started a weekly meetup for anyone in town at Marion’s Pizza. They became the glue that held us all together. He’s the guy with whom I’ve had so many lively political debates on Facebook over the last few years, and I’ve already missed those debates this month while he’s been fighting for his life.

John is not a number on a chart, not just a statistic; he’s a flesh-and-blood human with whom I share a history. He is for me the new face of “pandemic.” Many people still don’t have that face; to them, those numbers are still impersonal. But tragically, before this long, dark winter ends, thousands more will have a face to give definition and urgency to the dispassionate words “COVID,” “coronavirus,” “pandemic.”

As those cold numbers begin to take on flesh, the complaints about rights being violated and government overstepping its bounds become a bit more personal. Could those people look Sharon Mathes–or whoever else it may be that gives the disease a face–in the eye and say they’re being oppressed by the mandate that they wear masks in public? I don’t know how John contracted COVID, but I know that if my wearing a mask or taking other recommended precautions carries even the chance of protecting another family from suffering the devastation that the Mathes family is now mired in, I wouldn’t think of insulting those families by complaining about my “rights” or my “inconvenience.”

Another face that guides my responses these days is that of my former pastor, from the church I left when I moved out of Florida. I’ve read Pastor Jeff’s letters to members as he navigates this uncharted territory of how to have church during a pandemic. Is it safe to meet for in-person worship, or should services be streamed online only? If there are occasional in-person meetings, what precautions need to be followed? How does a leader do the tightrope dance of trying to balance wise judgment and scientific fact with maintaining harmony and good will among parishioners who have differing ideas about how things should be done?

Reading Jeff’s personal and honest accounts of his grappling with the responsibility–in conjunction with the church’s ruling elders–to make the right decisions, knowing that no decision will be met with unanimous approval, has moved me to greater compassion for all leaders who are doing their best to guide us through these unfamiliar waters.

Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee, comes to mind, along with the other governors who struggle to make wise, science-based policies while facing the ire of citizens who resent their efforts and who will flout whatever guidelines and mandates they propose: citizens whose conception of their “constitutional rights” outweighs any consideration of public welfare or the common good.

Government powers must be restrained, of course. Too many countries in world history have been case studies in government tyranny, and we have ample examples of corruption in our own country. Yet in fact, although each of us sees our personal concerns and although those concerns are valid and deserve consideration, it is not only the right but the responsibility of our elected officials to oversee the whole system, to make sure all of the parts function together. They are privy to information to which the rest of us don’t have access, allowing them to see a bigger picture than most of us are able to see. There is good reason to question the wisdom and integrity of individual officials; however, making decisions to insure public welfare is the job those officials are elected to do, and they of derelict of their duty if they don’t do it.

Locally, the West Seattle bridge was closed this year because of cracks and structural instability, and it will remain closed until at least 2022. The bridge was part of a major thoroughfare, and its closure has posed an inconvenience for probably thousands of commuters. Our local government made the decision to close based on engineering data because it is their responsibility to act for the public good. If they had simply informed the public of the structural problems and advised against using the bridge, knowledge of human nature should tell us that hundreds if not thousands of people would still be driving across it because it’s their normal route and the g-d government has no right to tell them where they can and cannot drive. They’ll make up their own minds, thank you very much.

The tell-us-what’s-happening-and-then-let-us-decide method of handling matters of public safety seems to be the choice of many who feel the government has gone too far in imposing restrictions to limit the spread of COVID. Yet history has shown that such an approach rarely if ever ends well and that those same people would lash out at the government for being too lax and for abdicating their duties if restrictions were to be loosened and the death toll to rise even more.

My heart goes out to our governors and local law makers who must do their jobs in the current polarized atmosphere, knowing they’re “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” Dr. Fauci has received death threats and a few months ago said he had hired security for himself and his family. He expressed disbelief that a doctor–one who took an oath to “do no harm”–would find himself needing protection for doing his job.

To Pastor Jeff, Governor Inslee, Dr. Fauci, and the many others charged with the enormous task of saving lives and leading others to act safely, whether they want to or not, you have my highest respect and support.

“Make America Great Again” needs to change to “Make America Compassionate Again,” “Make America Responsible Again,” “Make America Moral Again,” or “Make America United and Cooperative Again.”

The stage has been set. There will be more John Matheses, and there will be more grieving widows like Sharon Mathes; those are unavoidable facts, largely beyond our power to control. What is within everyone’s power is to take the personal responsibility to keep the number of Johns and Sharons as low as possible. We’re overwhelmed, but we’re not helpless. Everyone has a duty to be part of the solution. It’s going to be a long, dark winter; but I want to be here to see next winter.

Wear the damn mask!

Tags Coronavirus, COVID

Politics

For Such a Time As This

The long night is almost over, we have awakened from the terrifying nightmare, we have released a loud collective exhale. When I lie dying, on some far-off day, I will remember the scenes etched into my consciousness on November 7, 2020, when I saw the return of the America I have known and loved. People danced in the streets in massive conglomerations of skin colors, sexual identities, religious beliefs, ethnicities, professions, education levels, income levels. There were no angry chants, no pumped fists, and only a few negative signs–just flag waving, singing, and dancing. What I saw in those images on my TV screen was unadulterated joy and relief, and it was beautiful.

It’s been an excruciating four years and a time which I’m willing to admit has shaken me to my very core. I, along with my fellow Americans, have watched in horror as a rogue “president” and his accomplices have taken a wrecking ball to our democracy. Most heart-rending of all has been seeing people I have long known and respected pulled into the snare of a lying, cheating, grifting con artist. We have watched truth be reduced to “opinion.” We have listened to more than 22,000 lies spoken from the presidential pulpit and echoed by millions, all without consequence. We have witnessed foreign interference in our most sacred right, welcomed by the beneficiaries of that interference, also without negative consequences. We have watched an impeached “president” brazenly demand reelection and millions of our friends, neighbors, and family members line up to cast their votes for him.

We have seen statesmen uncloaked, revealing themselves as just power-hungry mercenaries; and we’ve seen their constituents eagerly reelect them. We’ve been witnesses as the Party of Lincoln has devolved into the Party of Conspiracy Theories and Incompetence. “Moral high ground” has come to mean nothing more than pro-life, anti-abortion fanaticism. Lives lost to gun violence, black lives cut short by police cruelty, children kidnapped and held in cages for three years or longer, families unable to buy food because they’ve lost their jobs as a result of a pandemic–these lives have been irrelevant in the predominant “moral” code.

We have watched nearly a quarter million, so far, of our fellow citizens die while not a word of condolence or comfort or genuine promise of help has been spoken from our White House. We have watched the dismantling of the structures which were put in place during previous administrations to manage the possibility of a pandemic. In their place were only the fatuous comments about how, when we least expect it, the coronavirus will magically disappear–maybe a little faster if we just inject some bleach or shine a light in the appropriate place.

Worst of all, we have seen the jaws of authoritarianism and fascism open and bare the vicious fangs which would love to devour us, to destroy the world’s oldest functioning democracy, to prove that this great experiment of ours has failed and was just a pipe dream all along. We have watched the fabric of our democracy stretched almost to the point of being torn asunder, our country reduced from leader of the free world to laughing stock of the world. But fascism, you can close your ugly jaws and go back to where you came from. We are stronger than you.

Joe Biden won the election, but most important, WE won. We showed that, although we can be swindled into a period of darkness, the American spirit is real; this experiment is still working. We have earned the right once again to call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave, to wave our flag proudly as a symbol of an imperfect union held together by imperfect people who believe in the goodness and strength of the human spirit to overcome adversity.

We have tons of work to do. This country had problems before the inauguration of 2017, and the inauguration of 2021 is not going to make them disappear. The good that has come from these last four years is that they have shined a light under the beds and in the corners and the closets where we’ve kept our dark impulses hidden and pretended they had gone away. They’re all out now, right in the middle of the living room, and we have to start house cleaning.

What this election did for us was give us the leadership to guide the country through the hard task of looking honestly at each other and remembering that what unites us is stronger than what divides us. The last four years have revealed the deep prejudices that exist; now it’s the job of every single person to examine their own heart and acknowledge their own prejudices, because everybody has at least one. If we are to be whole again, every person must begin with cleansing his/her own soul. No political party has all of the right answers; healing will require finding our common ground and building on it.

Joe Biden has never been accused of being exciting. He’s not suave, polished, or sophisticated; he’s not an eloquent orator. He can be clumsy, awkward, and gaffe prone; in fact, gaffes have been his m.o. What he does bring to this time of healing is goodness, and goodness is what we have most been missing. Joe Biden is a good, decent, loving, kind, compassionate, empathetic human being who knows how to wrap his arms around a person or a nation who’s hurting and truly “feel with them” (the definition of empathy). Although the Democratic Party has its own set of problems, the wisdom of choosing a man such as this for a time such as this is a testament to the party’s moral fiber and patriotism.

Spoiler alert: Here comes another of my mother’s favorite sayings. She was fond of saying “You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.” That pivot some people kept waiting for in 2016 and 2017 couldn’t possibly have happened, because the raw material was not there. The person elected president in 2016 did not have the knowledge, temperament, wisdom, dignity, or class to be president. Hoping to make a beautiful creation out of that raw material was futile, to put it kindly. A pig’s ear is a pig’s ear, period. It can’t be silk, and it can’t be made to look like silk.

Joe Biden is not pure silk either, but he’s high quality cowhide; and that makes a pretty solid, durable purse. A silk bag is only good for a fancy evening out, but that leather bag can go anywhere and endure pretty much any abuse. President-Elect Biden has been tested, and he’s a survivor. He’s suffered loss–both of loved ones and of ambitions and elections–and he didn’t come from wealth or privilege. His driving force has been to serve his family and his country, and he has faithfully done that for 48 years. He is strengthened by his faith, though he doesn’t flaunt that faith or use it as a weapon. If he goes to church, it will be to worship, not to stage a photo op; and no tear gas will be required.

Congratulations, America! I have never been more proud to call you my home. Now let’s all get to work! We have a lot to do. The world is celebrating with us, but they’ll also be watching. Let’s not let them down again. Let goodness, decency, kindness, and compassion prevail. God bless America!

Tags Election 2020, Joe Biden

Politics

Pee-Wee Herman Politics

During my sons’ tween-age years, Pee-Wee Herman, a character played by actor Paul Reubens, was frequently on the screen in our house; so my sons adopted Pee-Wee’s favorite retort to an insult: “I know you are, but what am I?” For example, “You’re an idiot, Pee-Wee.” Pee-Wee’s response: “I know you are, but what am I?” Mr. Reubens’ career ended after an incident that just begs for an off-color joke; but moving along, the saying remained one of our favorite humorous comebacks for quite some time.

Never could I have imagined I’d see the day when a comedian’s schtick would go to the mainstream political arena, but here we are. Donald Trump’s first notable “I know you are, but what am I?” moment came during the third presidential debate of 2016. Hillary Clinton confronted Donald Trump about the campaign help he was receiving from Russia, saying Putin would love to see Trump elected, because Putin would then have a puppet in our White House. Trump shot back, “No puppet. No puppet. You’re the puppet.” No one would be surprised by that comeback in a fifth-grade classroom; but on the stage of a presidential debate, we expect more: counter-arguments supported by facts and examples.

Sadly for all of us, real arguments based on facts are now only a dim memory, replaced by Pee-Wee Herman Politics.

Our national intelligence agencies have clearly established the fact that Russia conducted coordinated, widespread efforts to influence our 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. Witnesses presented compelling evidence to prove Donald Trump–in a phone call made from the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office–attempted to enlist Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s assistance in finding “dirt” on Joe Biden that could be used to discredit him with voters. All of these incidents are well documented with fact, yet they have become part of the narrative reversal that is driving the 2020 presidential race.

The list of pending litigation against Donald Trump–much of which he will be forced to face when he no longer has the shield of the presidency to protect him–is pages long. His shady business dealings, both before and during his tenure in the White House, are well known and documented. What we have seen so far of his highly classified tax returns holds enough damning evidence to insure he could die behind bars. He has never divested himself from his businesses, while he has encouraged and required that they be used by government personnel, enriching himself by misusing his office for personal gain. And that doesn’t even include the times he and his family have used their official positions to hawk everything from beans to apparel.

Current figures estimate that $141,000,000 has been spent during the last almost four years on Trump’s golf outings, yet the faithful band of supporters praise his supposed donation of his $400,000 annual salary for being president. Even if he’s telling the truth about donating his salary, it would take 352 and a half years of that salary to equal what you and I have paid for his entertainment and negligence of his duties. That doesn’t exactly earn him a halo.

The Hatch Act of 1939 “prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while they are working in an official capacity,” but that law didn’t stop Donald Trump and the R.N.C. from using the White House as a venue for parts of their 2020 convention–most notably Trump’s acceptance speech, which included the requisite dictator-style balcony scene. At any other time in our post-1939 history, such theatrics would have been nixed in the planning stage; but the current unique combination of unhinged chief executive and corrupt, complicit political party have rendered complaints against abuse of power futile.

A prime example is the way Mitch McConnell goes stone-cold deaf any time his hypocrisy is pointed out; for example, his ramrodding Senate approval of a Supreme Court nominee in the middle of an election after denying so much as the courtesy of an interview with a candidate nominated eight months before an election. All of the righteous rhetoric of 2016 by McConnell and accomplices simply evaporated in 2020, and none of them seemed to notice or feel any sense of shame.

In true Pee-Wee Herman fashion, however, it’s Joe Biden who is now being portrayed to voters as a criminal, a would-be dictator, a person worthy of being locked up. Pee-Wee Herman’s “I know you are, but what am I?” is a more modern twist on the line my classmates and I used on the school playground: “I’m rubber, you’re glue. Anything you say bounces off me and sticks on you.” And the narrative reversal technique is on full display everywhere I look.

In a quick scan of some rabid Trump supporters’ Facebook pages, I found these claims about Joe Biden:

A post exclaims that both the CIA and the FBI have been covering for the Obama/Biden administration by redacting evidence against them and that because of this tweet from Donald Trump, the forementioned folks will soon be going to jail. Hashtag OctoberSurprise. The Tweet:

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”

Another post excoriates Democrats for putting the country through four years of “bullshit and lies” about Trump’s Russia ties, while lo and behold, it was actually Hillary Clinton who was doing the colluding all along.

Narrative reversal: It is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton who should be investigated and prosecuted for their complicity in Russia’s interference–not Donald Trump, who was “completely exonerated” (NOT) by the Mueller report. The problem with this narrative is that it is based on no credible evidence. Robert Mueller did not absolve Donald Trump of guilt; he simply declined to pursue prosecution against a sitting president. And no credible evidence has been presented to support the claim that members of the Obama administration colluded with Russia. So this tweet amounts to nothing more than a diversion from the facts and an attempt to retain the support of those gullible enough to believe anything Trump says and dismiss any facts to the contrary.

A September 9, 2020, headline in the conservative rag National Review reads:

“Bombshell Allegation: Hillary Orchestrated Collusion to Distract from Her Emails, According to Russian Intel.”

The article goes on to state, without evidence, that Hillary Clinton “signed off on the plan.”

A Twitter user, responding to Trump’s tweet about declassifying all documents relating to Russian election interference, says gleefully:

“When all of the documents are finally declassified, and all the redactions removed from reports, the nation will see that the FBI and CIA not only knew the Russia ‘collusion’ allegations against Trump were a political dirty trick, but they were in on the trick.”

Hashtags currently trending include #BidenCrimeFamily and #BeijingBiden. If those labels sound vaguely reminiscent of claims against Donald Trump and his family, you win the Pee-Wee Herman award for identifying “I know you are, but what am I?” ruses.

Aside from being a sign of desperation as polling numbers show a wider and wider gap in favor of Biden, the “I’m rubber, you’re glue” narrative reversal undermines the truth and serves to diffuse righteous indignation which should guide voters’ choices. Making “both sides” guilty of the same “crimes,” or attributing allegations against one side to the other, serve to neutralize the issue, and facts lose all relevance. When there is no authoritative source of truth, truth becomes whatever one chooses to believe; hence, confirmation bias (believing only that which supports one’s preconceived ideas) has become common among many of all persuasions. When we as a nation can no longer agree on what is true or credible, voters are left to choose according to visceral preferences, biases, and hearsay.

The New York Times, our nation’s oldest and most respected newspaper, is now a joke among those who have bought the “failing New York Times” and the broader “enemy of the people” epithets. Snopes and other fact-checkers are similarly scoffed at as liberal-leaning and untrustworthy. When the FBI and CIA are accused of being political operatives, we’re deep into dangerous territory. These are apolitical agencies whom we have always trusted to guard our national security, yet corrupt politicians have tarnished their credibility for personal gain and power. When our Justice Department is used as the personal legal team for the president, we’re equally at risk. We’re no longer kids on the playground, using silly retorts to deflect criticism. “Rubber-glue” narrative reversals have dire real-world consequences.

During this year’s final presidential debate, when Joe Biden attempted to press Donald Trump on the 545 children still held in cages by our government while no one knows where their parents are or how to find them, Trump offered no explanation except the lie, “They’re being treated very well.” Says the man who s*&ts on gold toilets. Trump’s only comeback was “Obama built the cages,” repeated several times. For once, he was telling the truth: President Obama did build the facilities, and I’m not even going to try to completely absolve him from guilt in the larger debacle.

What I do want to focus on is the way this narrative reversal enabled Trump to skirt the issue and deflect blame. President Obama built the facilities for a different reason, one that was relevant at the time; but he did not kidnap the 545 children in question, and he did not place the children in those cages, while making no attempt to keep track of their parents. Donald Trump alone is responsible for the kidnapping and imprisoning of these children, and no amount of narrative reversal can change the fact. And what has he done to end those children’s suffering? Sent his wife to visit, wearing a jacket that essentially said F you.

Even if Obama had placed them there (and he did not), Donald Trump has had almost four years in which to undo the damage, four years to show a glimmer of humanity and release those children either to their own parents or to caring people who would give them loving homes with beds in place of concrete floors; soft, warm, cozy blankets in place of mylar covers; a yard and fresh air in place of confinement; and a loving embrace to help ease the pain in which they have lived for three years. But what has he done about it? Nothing. Except blame Obama.

Possibly the most damaging effect of Pee-Wee Herman politics is that many voters seem confused about who is the incumbent in this election. Donald Trump has made it popular to counter every claim and campaign promise Joe Biden makes with the comeback, “You’ve had 47 years. Why haven’t you done this already?” Such an inane question doesn’t really deserve a response, but for those in the back row, Joe Biden has served as a senator and as a vice president. Neither of those offices is endowed with the same power or allows the same opportunities for unilateral action that the presidency does. One senator or vice president can effect change within the scope of their own office, but that scope is limited. Although Biden’s positions on issues can be discerned from his record in other offices, what he would accomplish in the office of president cannot be.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, should be called to account for what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish during the almost four years he has been president–something he has deftly avoided by employing Pee-Wee Herman Politics and flipping the narrative. Trump has for four years, five including his campaign, been promising a wonderful, beautiful health care plan that we’re all going to love. His efforts to strike down the ACA, now in the middle of an out-of-control pandemic, have been based on the promise of a better system. But where is it? He’s had four years. Why are 545 children still imprisoned, with no clue to their parents’ whereabouts? Why is he still “going to” make America great again? He’s had four years. Why does his campaign use images of this year’s civil unrest to show what life would be like during a Biden administration? This is what life has been like during a Trump administration. He’s had four years to be the “law and order” president. What has he done to make us safer?

In a typical election, the incumbent has the advantage of being able to point to achievements of his/her first term, on which he/she would like to build if given the chance for a second term. Who’s the incumbent here? Joe Biden is being held accountable for 47 years as a senator and vice president, but Donald Trump is not held accountable for four years as president. Does anyone else think that’s backward?

Pee-Wee Herman Politics trivializes a process that has life-and-death consequences; presidential elections are not child’s play. I close with an excerpt from a powerful speech by Senator Chuck Schumer, delivered on the eve of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, but I think perfectly applicable to the Republican Party’s last four years as a whole: the nomination of a reality-TV star for our highest office, the continued enabling of that “president’s” reign of chaos and his degradation of the office, allowing and repeating his lies, blocking his well-deserved impeachment, doing nothing to stop foreign interference in our elections, and allowing more than 230,000 people to die while they told us things are getting better and will magically go away at any moment.

“I want to be very clear with my Republican colleagues. You may win this vote. . . . But you will never, never get your credibility back. . . . You may win this vote. But in the process you will speed the precipitous decline of faith in our institutions, our politics, the Senate and the Supreme Court. You will give an already divided and angry nation a fresh outrage, and open a wound in this chamber that may never heal.
You walk a perilous road.
I know you think that this will eventually blow over. But you are wrong. The American people will never forget this blatant act of bad faith. They will never forget your complete disregard for their voices, for the people standing in line right now voting their choice, not your choice.
They will never forget the lack of consistency, honor, decency, fairness and principle.”

You know what to do: Vote like your life depends on it. When my grandchildren are older and living the results of our choices, I want to be able to tell them I stood on the right side of history. Your vote will have consequences far beyond your lifetime. Vote like your children’s and grandchildren’s lives depend on it. They do.

Tags Donald Trump, Election 2020, Joe Biden

Politics

It’s Almost Midnight

The recent chatter about Donald Trump’s declining mental state and increasingly erratic behavior has me thinking of the legend of Faust. Isn’t everyone? In the classic German legend, an eminent scholar, Faust, becomes bored with his life, unable to sate his desire for something beyond the scope of his studies. Enter Mephistopheles, servant of Lucifer, who grants Faust 24 years of unlimited knowledge and pleasures of the flesh. In exchange for Mephistopheles’ favors, Faust signs a pact to surrender his soul to Lucifer at midnight on the last day of the 24 years. The legend, originally written down in the 16^th century, has known many retellings, including those by Christopher Marlowe and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Hollywood actor and director Richard Burton.

Although the various renditions change the names a bit–Faust is also Dr. Faustus–and alter the ending, the story has become a metaphor for any situation in which a person is willing to exchange their morals and values, in other words sell their soul, to test the bounds of human limitations and gain a greater share of earth’s power, wealth, and pleasure.

Donald Trump is certainly no scholar, but he shares with Faustus the insatiable craving for more, the drive to overcome human limitation. The title of his niece’s book, Too Much and Never Enough, is a fitting epitaph for his life. Our tragic hero, Trumpus, was teasing the idea of a presidential bid as far back as 1988, bantering about the idea with Oprah and Larry King over a period of years. His hunger for power and prestige led him to leave his home borough of Brooklyn and cross the river into the more glamorous and highfalutin Manhattan, the place his more frugal father would never venture into.

Trumpus’s appetite for the pleasures of the flesh is also well known. Conquests of beautiful women, both willing and unwilling partners, have stoked his ego and caused him to brag to Howard Stern during an interview that sex should count as his Viet Nam and he should be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for having avoided contracting any STDs in his numerous liaisons.

He had money, he had fame of a sort (mostly the supermarket tabloid sort), he had his name in tall gold letters on buildings across the globe, he lived in ostentatious penthouses, he had wealth (though not as much as he claimed), he had success as a reality TV star, he had power as the CEO of the many companies that comprise the Trump Organization, he had the appearance of success as a businessman (convincing enough to dupe millions of people into voting for him to run the business of our country), and he surrounded himself with beautiful women, including Miss Universe contestants.

But, like Faustus, Trumpus’s restlessness drove him to take great risks in his quest for the salve that would soothe his itch for more. Rising to the highest office in the land and wielding the authority of the most powerful position on earth felt to him like the last mountain to be climbed. With it would come the adulation of millions and the opportunity to destroy the legacy of the man he envied and hated; and as the CEO of the country, he could expand his wealth by making his private enterprises venues for government business.

It was the perfect plan, but there were obstacles. He was inexperienced in politics, he was completely uneducated in the constitution, foreign policy, the economy, global alliances, geography, or any other subject that might have given him knowledge and insight needed for the job. Moreover, he lacked the basic intelligence and intellectual curiosity to learn any of those things. He even had to pay someone to sit for his SAT so that he could earn the required score for admission to the Wharton School of business. What to do? Well, he could summon Mephistopheles.

And so he did. In this version of the tale, Mephistopheles is named Vladimir Putin. Putin, with the complicity of the Republican Party, would grant Trumpus the presidency–with all of the glamour, power, wealth, and ego inflation–in exchange for complete control over Trump and freedom from the inconvenient sanctions that would be imposed on him by any real president. I would not presume to make suppositions about Donald Trump’s eternal soul, if he ever had one, but it has been clear to all with eyes to see and brains to process information that he is beholden to Vladimir Putin in ways detrimental to him and to the country gullible and stupid enough to elect him.

There is throughout the tale a sort of madness to Faustus, like the character in Edgar Allen Poe’s story who is strapped down and unable to move while the pendulum that could slice him in half inches its way closer. Trumpus’s base level madness shows itself in his frenetic tweeting, bragging, and lying about such things as crowd sizes and his ability to handle things: “I alone can fix it.” Trumpus knows his time is limited, unless of course he can incite his base to make him the kind of life-term authoritarian ruler he so admires in other countries.

Whether it’s four years or eight years, midnight is coming, and he sees the bottomless chasm opening to swallow him up: that deep pit of legal troubles over which he is dangling, which must be every bit as terrifying as the mythical hell flames. As long as he can remain in office, he will continue to have the immunity to prosecution and unveiling of his deepest secrets that he has so far enjoyed. At the stroke of midnight, however, he will be open to exposure–the threat of which is driving him further into madness, just as Faustus descends into madness during his final moments.

Former CIA Director John Brennan said to MSNBC news anchor Joy Reid, on October 12: “Things have gone from the abnormal to the surreal.”

One reason it’s been difficult to recognize and chart Donald Trump’s descent into madness is that he’s never been sane. Abnormality has been the norm: the lies, the tweeting, the flouting of tradition and norms, the disrespect for his office, the ignorance, the utter lack of compassion for other humans, the refusal to treat his supporters and his critics with equal respect and responsibility, the refusal to condemn white supremacist groups, the inner circle of felons and the lowest level of humanity, the willingness to do anything to boost his ego and retain power and adulation. Tragically, this is the base line.

How could things get worse? When the guy who signed the deed (made the deal with Lucifer) is looking at possible debt collection time (November 3), even the thinnest semblance of control is going to be next to impossible to maintain.

Hence, the infamous tweets appear to be escalating in both number and recklessness. This one, posted on October 5, 2020, could win awards for misinformation, insensitivity, and shameless self-promotion:

“I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good! Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

Yes, misinformation, insensitivity, and shameless self-promotion are his primary characteristics on his best day; but this tweet hits a new low.

In the most inane report of the week (so difficult to single out just one), it’s been widely reported that he had cooked up this stunt and discussed it with several people as he was preparing to leave Walter Reed Medical Center. In his always-delusional, now drug-enhanced extra-delusional brain, he saw himself walking out of the hospital in his usual button-down shirt and suit coat. Then at just the perfect moment, he would rip open his shirt, revealing a Superman T-shirt underneath. Really. This was his fever dream for demonstrating his strength and virility. With 210,000 Americans at that same moment having lost their lives to the disease he claims to have beaten, he wanted to do a Reality TV stunt to show how strong he thinks he is.

His scattershot efforts at voter suppression expose the desperation which drives him. Tampering with the postal service, raising unfounded alarm about mail-in voting, putting up roadblocks to make voting more difficult, and lying about ballot fraud are all aimed at suppressing votes for his opponent and creating enough doubt about the legitimacy of the election to set the stage for the Supreme Court to decide the winner. And he’s orchestrated, with his complicit Republican senators, the greatest sham hearing in history to railroad through a SCOTUS nominee, to be sure he has a majority on the bench when the election case is presented.

In a move typical of banana-republic dictators but not of the republic to which Americans pledge their allegiance, he is using the power of his office and of our government agencies to attempt punishment of his political rivals. During the week following his release from Walter Reed, he launched a series of tweets demanding the imprisonment of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and excoriating his own Attorney General Bill Barr for not acting fast enough. The tweet storm culminated in an all-caps scream:

“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN – GOT CAUGHT!!!”

I’m trying to imagine what congressional action would have been taken against any other president who made such an unhinged demand.

To prove he’s an equal-opportunity employer, he also attacked his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not having declassified and released all of Hillary Clinton’s emails (groan!). CNN’s Jennifer Hansler reports:

“’She said she had 33,000 e-mails,’ Trump told Fox News on Thursday. ‘They’re in the State Department, but Mike Pompeo is unable to get them out, which is very sad actually. I’m — I’m not happy about him for that, that reason. He was unable to get — I don’t know why. You’re running the State Department and you get them out. But they’re in the State Department.’”

My mother always said, “Any port will do in a storm.” And Trump’s storm is rising, so he’s frantically throwing out whatever might appease the storm gods and find him safe harbor.

So what is it that may await our tragic hero when his days in the White House end? What does he see in that chasm that is slowly opening beneath his feet? Among other things, exposure of his crimes and misdeeds and most embarrassing moments, a wave of lawsuits, and if justice prevails, prison time.

Parts of the Mueller Report which have so far been redacted could be made public, further information about his tax fraud may be published, whatever Vladimir Putin is holding over his head may be exposed, evidence may be revealed to substantiate parts of the Steele Dossier, more aides and administration officials may feel free to tell what they know and write more tell-all books, he could face even more lawsuits than are already pending against him from families of COVID patients who have died, and worst of all to his narcissistic mind he will stand naked before the world as the thing he hates most: a loser.

Individual lawsuits are already too numerous to list, but they can be organized under a few general headings: finances and taxes; violations while in office, including the Hatch Act, the emoluments clause, and using White House property for political gatherings; possible lawsuits arising from the Mueller Report; campaign violations; sexual misconduct and assault, of which he has been credibly accused by 20 women, including one who was only 13 years old at the time of the alleged assault; and contractors whom he has refused to pay money he owed. This is just a small sampling of what he and his family may face when he can no longer retreat to the safe harbor of the White House.

Our job is to be sure midnight comes on November 3, 2020–not November 5, 2024. As Senator Amy Klobuchar so passionately argued during the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett, “This isn’t Donald Trump’s country, it is yours.” I’m ready to take it back. Let Donald Trump pay for the bargain he made, and let us restore our country. By 2024, it may be too late.

Tags Faustus, Trump

Politics

All Lives Matter, but Some Matter More

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date October 6, 2020
No Comments on All Lives Matter, but Some Matter More

It was a grand spectacle. It could have been staged by a Hollywood producer. The helicopter landed on the lawn near the majestic staircase, the COVID patient emerged dressed elegantly in a suit and tie, he ascended the staircase in the fashion of dictators and strong men everywhere, and like dictators and strong men everywhere, he posed on the balcony facing his adoring public. After defiantly removing his mask and stuffing it into his pocket, he stood at attention for several minutes, basking in the light of the cameras. There were no smiles, no warmth, no friendly gestures, just a posture of strength: his COVID victory lap.

Then he turned to enter his temporary home–also a work place to hundreds of people–unmasked though still contagious and having been visibly laboring to breathe during the entire photo op. But that’s not all. According to reporters, he required videographers to re-shoot the scene of his entering the White House, to be sure they captured just the image he sought to project. All of this time, he was unmasked, in close proximity to those required to assist him and carry out his wishes; but apparently those lives don’t matter. Neither do the lives of the Secret Service agents required to take him on a Sunday afternoon joy ride in a hermetically sealed vehicle.

Hours before leaving the hospital, he wrote these reassuring words: “Don’t be afraid of COVID. Don’t let it dominate your life.”

You heard the man.

Child, don’t be afraid of COVID. The parent whom you loved is gone. You will never again feel the warmth of those loving arms or see the smile on the face you cherished. Your parent will not be present for any of the milestones in your life: at graduations, you’ll see an empty spot in the audience; at your wedding, there will be no celebratory dance with that parent; at every holiday gathering, you’ll see an empty chair where your beloved parent would have sat. You may be forced to live with reduced income, maybe even in poverty, because that parent was a family wage earner. You’ll relive the loss for as long as you live, but don’t let this dominate your life.

Parent, don’t be afraid of COVID. You’ve laid your precious child to rest: the one you brought into the world, maybe nursed at your own breast, tenderly cared for and provided for, and watched in wonder and amazement as they grew. At every new stage of life, the love you thought couldn’t possibly be any greater became even more intense. You fiercely protected your child from every harm, cared for them during sickness, bandaged the wounds of childhood accidents; and then one day, your child encountered an adversary against which you and your doctors were helpless. All you could do is let the disease ravage their body until there was no breath left in it. But you know, hardly any children get COVID; they’re almost immune to it. Your child’s disease was just a fluke, bad luck. So don’t let this dominate your life.

Spouse, don’t be afraid of COVID. The person you loved died alone, with only a FaceTime or Zoom farewell, with no loving touch or comforting presence. But hey, thank goodness for technology, right? Imagine how bad it would have been before we had smart phones and computers. This person to whom you pledged your love and fidelity, with whom you were traveling through life with all of its joys and sorrows, for whom you’d have stepped in front of a bullet, is gone. Never again will you feel the warmth of their body or see the adoration in their eyes as they look deeply into yours; never again will you feel the safety and reassurance you found with them at your side. Your financial circumstances may be reduced without their income, and you may have to raise alone the children you brought into the world together. That gaping hole in the middle of your chest will never completely close over, but don’t let this dominate your life.

Friend, don’t be afraid of COVID. That person you shared life with, laughed with, cried with, danced with, got into mischief with is gone. They died alone, without you or their family members physically present to give comfort and a farewell kiss. The empty chair, the ghostly vision, the heartful of memories, the boxes full of photos are all you have left to remind you of the special love you shared. Your friend may be one of the tens of thousands who didn’t have to die, who would still be alive had there been competent national leadership to get this virus under control as all other nations have done. But it is what it is, so don’t let this dominate your life.

Uninsured and underinsured Americans, don’t be afraid of COVID. If you test positive, no helicopter will land on your lawn and whisk you off to the world’s premier medical facility. You won’t be looked after by a dedicated team of doctors, you won’t be given expensive cutting-edge treatments, you won’t have a private suite of rooms. In fact, you’ll be lucky to get any treatment at all, because the person gloating in front of the cameras about having conquered his own illness, through expensive cutting-edge treatments which you and I paid for, has consistently attempted to strip you of the insurance which might have provided you a basic level of treatment and has lawyers in court now arguing to leave millions of you without any insurance. But don’t worry; he’s fine. He beat it, thanks to you and me. So don’t let this dominate your life.

Business owners, don’t be afraid of COVID. Your business may have gone under because of the shutdowns and the economic downturn caused by the pandemic, or maybe you’re struggling to hold onto the last shreds of what was your livelihood. You’ve had to watch your employees apply for unemployment because you can no longer write the checks by which they have provided for themselves and their families. But you’ll find something else, and so will your employees. Just get out there and live the American dream. If you work hard enough, you will prosper. Times have been tough, and they’re going to be tough awhile longer, but don’t let this dominate your life.

Unemployed workers, don’t be afraid of COVID. You’ve lost your job because of a pandemic and the reckless, irresponsible handling of it, but thank goodness for unemployment checks, eh? And how about that one stimulus check you received? You remember, the one that came months ago, with the “president’s” signature. You can’t pay your rent or mortgage payment, you worry every day about how you’ll feed your family, you struggle to make the car payment and buy insurance and fuel for the vehicle. But be creative, man! Consider this time a gift: learn a new skill, take a trip, write a book. Whatever you do, don’t let this dominate your life.

Essential workers, don’t be afraid of COVID. You’ve been out there every day since the beginning, ringing up sales at grocery stores, home improvement stores, banks, and gas stations. You’ve been verbally and physically assaulted by frustrated, angry customers who don’t want to wear masks or who can’t understand why they are limited to purchasing only one package of toilet paper. You’ve gone home every day with the knowledge that you may have been exposed to the deadly virus and if so are exposing your family to it as well. But be grateful you have a job, and don’t let this dominate your life.

Exhausted health care workers, don’t be afraid of COVID. You’ve been the ones in direct contact with the more than 7 million Americans who have contracted the virus, and you’ve witnessed the deaths of the more than 211,000 Americans who were not so lucky as our “president.” You’ve worked extra shifts, often without proper equipment because our national leadership did not use all of the available resources to produce sufficient PPE for both you and your patients or the extra respirators and other equipment you needed to provide the level of care your patients required. You go home every day bone weary, praying you’ve protected yourself well enough to avoid infection and praying you’re not taking home anything that might endanger your family. You struggle to suppress the scenes of trauma dancing in your brain so that you can go to sleep and be renewed for another day of the same–with no foreseeable end. You push aside dark thoughts of ending your own life, as others in your field have done, because the stress and the pain have become unendurable. But hey, don’t let this dominate your life.

Precious wife, whose husband died of cancer in March, don’t be afraid of COVID. Your husband didn’t have COVID, but the skilled care facility where he was being treated had to be locked down because of the pandemic, so he died alone. In his mental confusion, caused by dementia and the drugs he was receiving, he thought you had abandoned him. You who were married to him for over 50 years, you who walked beside him, you who worked with him during the years you both served marginalized people and anyone else who needed your help, you who loved and cared for him throughout his life and during his illness. In the end, you had to say goodbye on the phone, with him not understanding that you were still there and still loved him.

Dear cousins, who were unable to visit your mother, my aunt, during the last few months of her life, don’t be afraid of COVID. Your mother was one of the most loving and giving people I’ve ever known. Her home was always open to family, and her nieces and nephews knew we could count on her to show us a fun time. She, of the twelve siblings, was the one who stayed close by and cared for our grandmother during her final years. She was a leader in her community, taking the initiative to found a library when she learned that the small town you moved to didn’t have one. She didn’t have COVID, but she too was in a care facility that had to be closed to visitors because of the pandemic. So after almost 90 years of living for others, she died alone.

I wonder how all of you felt when you saw the man on the balcony say, “I’m fine. Maybe I’m immune? So get out there. Don’t be afraid.” Did you feel that this man cared about your loved one? Did you feel that he cares about you? Did you feel that this man deserves to live in the People’s House another four years while you and I pay his bills so that he can go on not giving a damn what happens to any of us?

Francine Prose, in a Guardian article, says what many of us have felt and thought:

“We’d like to believe that suffering instructs and ennobles; that our grief, fear and pain increases our sympathy for the grief, fear and pain of others. But again, Donald Trump seems to be ineducable, impervious to shame, guilt, or any sense of personal responsibility, unaffected by anything except vanity, selfishness and reckless self-regard. Certainly, the experience of having his blood oxygen level drop so low that supplemental oxygen was required must have been alarming, and yet the president continues to believe that bluster is the best medicine.”

Our nation is on code blue. It’s our choice whether we pull the plug on our democracy or wake up and work like hell to resuscitate it. We can’t allow these 211,000 lives to be lost in vain. Starting now, we have to elect responsible leaders, and then we have to be responsible leaders and followers. Our lives and our children’s and grandchildren’s lives depend on what we do in the next 28 days and beyond. Voting is only the beginning. Our new president (please, God!) is going to need our cooperation and support. It’s up to us to put the “United” back in “United States of America.”

Tags COVID, Election 2020

Politics

False Equivalence and Other Fallacies

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date September 30, 2020
No Comments on False Equivalence and Other Fallacies

Have you ever been in a situation when someone was being a real jerk to you, and you tried to engage calmly and reasonably in a conversation with that person? Then a third person came along and said, “Okay, you two, break it up. You’re both out of line here,” or something to that effect? And you wanted to protest, “NO, not you TWO! That ONE! I didn’t do anything wrong. I’ll admit I might be a jerk sometimes, but today was not my day! “

Did one of your parents ever break up a fight between you and a sibling by pronouncing you equally responsible and sending both of you to your rooms, when you were not at fault (that day)? How about a teacher who came into the room to find pandemonium and then penalized the whole class when a little investigation would have told them the problem was the work of two or three instigators?

How did those experiences make you feel? Each one has happened to me, and I have felt angry and resentful, and I still feel a bit resentful when one or two of the incidents come to mind. When I am at fault, I will accept responsibility for my actions; but when I get called out simply for engaging with someone who’s being unreasonable, it’s frustrating because the accusation creates a false equivalence between the jerk and me, which in that particular instance is unjustified.

Last night, I along with millions of others around the globe endured 90 minutes of the meanest, most childish, most shameful and embarrassing behavior ever witnessed on a presidential debate stage. The spectacle was a new low, even for a “president” who had already broken nearly every norm he possibly could and certainly a new low for the dignity of our republic.

Within a half hour after we were all put out of our misery by the “closing bell,” I began seeing social media posts about how abominably the two candidates conducted themselves, how they were more like two naughty school boys than candidates for our country’s highest office, how the moderator was forced to act like a school principal trying to corral these two hooligans.

Wait a minute! If that is not a false equivalence, there is no such thing. As Frank Bruni so aptly put it in his next-morning NYT column, although Joe Biden flung a little mud, when you’ve been dragged into the pig sty, there’s not much else you can do.

Joe Biden came prepared to debate, as he has many times during his career. Joe has never been known as a stellar debater or public speaker, but he has a firm grasp on the facts and an understanding of the world and of how government works, and he presents that information in a clear and coherent way. You know, complete sentences and stuff like that. He draws on his 47 years of experience, does the debate prep ahead of time, and expects to face a worthy opponent. Of course, he knew in this case what he’d be up against, but I don’t think anyone anticipated the depth to which Trump would stoop (not that anyone thought him incapable) or the utter chaos and havoc he would wreak onstage.

Donald Trump has made no secret of the fact he does little to no preparation for debates. In this case, his only prep seems to have been determining to consume all of the oxygen in the room, and at that he succeeded. Trump, from the first moments of the “debate,” bullied and abused both his opponent and the moderator, abused the process, abused his office, and abused the public trust we should all be able to have in our elected officials.

Chris Wallace was, in hindsight, not a good fit for moderator. He’s too genteel, soft spoken, and conciliatory to handle the likes of Donald Trump. Trump behaved the only way he is capable of behaving: insecure, angry, hostile, and combative. Chris Wallace behaved the only way he is capable of behaving: a gentleman who expects others to be as genteel as he is and to honor the process and the rules as he does. If there must be another debate, I’d like to recommend Samuel L. Jackson as moderator. Perhaps one or two of these lines would help shape things up: “English, mother*f^%er, do you speak it?” (Pulp Fiction) or “Hold onto your butts” (Jurassic Park) or “Given that it’s a stupid-ass decision [substitute ‘statement’ here], I’ve elected to ignore it” (The Avengers). End of digression.

All three made errors, but to call this an “everybody-was-wrong” situation is irresponsible. There are many reasons for drawing false equivalences, but there is no justification for such lazy thinking.

A teacher or parent might find it more pragmatic to discipline everyone involved than to do the work of investigation or to face the ire or risk the retaliation of the one or two trouble makers who really deserve correction. One might cover for a spouse or child by attempting to spread the blame for the wrongdoing rather than admitting that the loved one was really the sole guilty party. A follower of a political candidate may be unwilling to admit they’ve been fooled by the person they admire, so they’d rather equalize the situation by making everyone wrong.

In a broader sense, however, the tendency to draw false equivalences is symptomatic of lazy thinking and a misguided desire to maintain neutrality, both of which are always dangerous but now more so than ever before. We’re living in a time for which there is no map, no historical precedent; we can’t afford to pretend otherwise.

The lazy thinker who doesn’t want to do the hard work of thinking, reading, listening, and evaluating finds comfort in affixing broad labels to groups: lumping every member into one large category, rather than recognizing a broad range of categories. “The media,” “religion,” and “politics” come to mind.

Media bashing is an Olympic-level sport, and the criticism is often well deserved. But pick up a copy of the New York Times or the Washington Post and lay it beside a copy of the National Enquirer or Star, and it would be impossible to place them all under one heading, except that they are all part of “the media.”

Investigative journalism is essential to democracy. Investigative journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down a corrupt president. From the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to the Panama Papers published in 2016 as well as many other information troves, investigative journalists have done what few others could have achieved, exposing corruption and toppling leaders across the globe. Every day, reputable journalists are at work bringing us the information we need to remain informed citizens and to maintain our democracy–information we would have no other means of accessing. To equate them with writers and publishers of salacious gossip and conspiracy theories or of carelessly researched and sloppily reported purveyors of political biases is both insulting and irresponsible.

How often have you heard generalizations about religion, churches, ministers, and politicians? The reason, I think, is that it’s easier than having to think and make distinctions. But it’s also dangerous, because such generalizations create public distrust in institutions essential to our survival as a nation.

Another outcome of false equivalence is somewhat akin to the “two wrongs make a right” thinking. One person points out a fault in a public figure, such as a presidential candidate, and another immediately responds with “Well, your candidate does that too” or “They all do that” or “That’s true of both sides.” As long as the second speaker feels they have tied the score, they can dismiss the entire issue without the inconvenience of having to do any further thinking about it. One of my favorite quotations from Ralph Waldo Emerson is this:

“A sect or party is an elegant incognito designed to save a man from the vexation of thinking.”

For an example, see the masses who believe and follow Donald Trump’s every word. It’s so much easier and more comfortable to simply carry the party line than have to reason out every issue for oneself. The same is true of anyone who espouses a religion or political affiliation without ever questioning its precepts.

The most dangerous effect of false equivalence is that it enables neutrality, and no one can afford to be neutral in these perilous times. If Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives are equally corrupt, no one has to do the work of promoting truth, because there is no truth. Serious truth seekers must discern between good and evil, between right and wrong, between bad and really bad. And then they have to be willing to stand on the side of good and right, no matter the cost. It’s the truth that sets us free; neutrality keeps us in bondage.

Lumping together Donald Trump and Joe Biden as badly behaved school boys and Chris Wallace as an equally bad performer ignores several crucial facts.

Only one person on the stage did a shout-out to white supremacists, calling one group by name and telling them to “stand back and stand by.” Within an hour or so after the debate ended, the Proud Boys had crafted themselves a new logo out of Trump’s words and published it. They then pledged their allegiance and their eagerness to serve with the statement “Well sir, we’re ready.” How does anyone see this as acceptable? In what world do these words seem fitting for a “law-and-order” president, or for any president or any American citizen? That’s not even a dog whistle inciting violence, it’s a bull horn. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace said any such thing, so where’s the equivalence?

Only one person on the stage attacked another of the men’s sons, one of whom is deceased. Only one man mocked the dead son and his service to his country and brought up the other son’s struggle with drug addiction. Even the most callous and insensitive among us have some limits; most of us would instinctively hold back from exploiting a father’s grief. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace did that, so where’s the equivalence?

Only one person on the stage degraded the esteemed office of President of the United States of America. Donald Trump has never respected the office to which he was elected, but never has he disrespected it more appallingly than he did last night. Neither Joe Biden nor Chris Wallace holds the office of President (yet), but nothing they did could equal the disgrace Donald Trump heaped upon our nation, so where’s the equivalence?

Since I began writing this article, I’ve learned a new word: “both-siderism.” Anthony B. Robinson, in a September 29 article, says the temptation is strong to “play ‘both-siderism.’”

“To declare that both former Vice President and President Trump were equally at fault for this depressing spectacle. It is a comfortable move. It allows those who make it to appear to take the high ground. ‘They’re both at fault.’ ‘They both did it.’ But it wasn’t equal. Both men did not behave like ill-mannered brats. Trump did. The President of the United States did.”

There is indeed no virtue in neutrality or both-siderism; such a stance is not moral high ground, it is dangerous quicksand. I’ve cited this quotation by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel many times, but it’s never been more relevant than it is right now:

“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.”

So do some interfering already. Take a side. There’s no virtue in neutrality, and there’s no virtue in supporting and encouraging the death of our democracy. To quote another more familiar leader:

“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

As Thomas Paine wrote so many years ago, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” What you and I do right now will determine the future of ourselves, our children, our children’s children, and our democracy. We can’t afford to be neutral.

Tags Trump

Justice Politics

We Dissent

This weekend, as I mourned along with the rest of the world Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, I watched the movie “On the Basis of Sex.” Twice. Grieving the loss of this intelligent, passionate, and articulate champion for human rights and shatterer of glass ceilings, I reflected on how best to honor such a person.

And I found this statement by Bruce Lindner in a Facebook post: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg led a life of constantly swimming upstream. Everything from institutionalized sexism, misogyny, ignorance, bigotry, anti-Semitism, and for her final curtain, five bouts with various types of cancer.” Generally, the best way to honor a person’s memory is not to get mired in grief and defeatism but to carry on the work which she or he started. Institutionalized sexism, misogyny, ignorance, bigotry, and anti-Semitism still exist; RBG is gone, so it’s up to you and me to continue the work of abolishing prejudice and removing obstacles to human dignity and progress.

In the movie, Ruth’s first opportunity to argue a case in court came when she and her husband Martin acted as co-counsels in an appeals case for a defendant who was discriminated against because he was a bachelor who was caring for his invalid mother. A lower court had convicted him of cheating on his taxes, and Ruth and Martin represented him in the appeal; according to Smithsonian Magazine, “The scene plays out in the same way the Ginsburgs have recounted it.”

In her final argument to the three-judge panel, Ruth says, “We’re not asking you to change the country. That’s already happened without any court’s permission. We’re asking you to protect the right of the country to change.” Her statement articulates a fact: people change, cultures change, mores and norms change. That change happens without legal approval, but the legal system can muck up the process by forcing citizens to live according to outdated norms and mores, institutionalized in outdated laws.

The United States Constitution has been seen as a model among documents of its kind, because the writers–our country’s founders–were astute thinkers who created a government framework that has remained relevant for well over 200 years. Since it went into effect in 1789, our constitution has been amended 27 times. Not bad for 231 years! Yet even as well crafted as the original document is, it has needed those 27 updates, and the laws for which it provides the framework have also had to be updated. The urgency to fix laws that no longer apply or that have become impediments is what drove RBG throughout her career.

In that same closing rebuttal, the movie Ruth argues, “There are 178 laws that differentiate on the basis of sex. . . . They’re obstacles to our children’s aspirations. . . . We all must take these laws on, one by one, for as long as it takes, for [our children’s] sakes.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words and ideals echo for me the words of two of my other favorite thinkers and writers: Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both Thoreau and King acknowledged the divide between law and morality, between just laws and unjust laws. Slavery was immoral but legal; assisting slaves to escape was illegal but moral. Jim Crow laws were legal but immoral; defying those laws was illegal but moral. Imprisoning and murdering Jewish people in Nazi Germany was legal but immoral; helping Jewish people avoid capture and arrest was illegal but moral. Kidnapping children at our border and imprisoning them is legal but immoral; any effort by concerned citizens to rescue those children and attempt to reunite them with their families would be moral but illegal.

In Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 essay “Civil Disobedience” (full title, “Resistance to Civil Government”), Thoreau defends not paying his poll tax for six years in protest against slavery and the U.S. declaration of war against Mexico, asserting that he could not in good conscience support a government that supported the immoral treatment of his fellow humans.

He argues that, although government is necessary, it is the character of individual citizens that makes this country great:

“It [our government] is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise . . . It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.”

Like RBG, Thoreau believed in citizens’ right to examine the laws by which they live and to challenge those laws that impede rather than facilitate our progress as a people. He says, “Unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” Like RBG, he believed that sometimes laws need to be fixed, because legalized injustice should not be allowed to stand.

He begins the central point of his essay with two probing questions:

“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right. . . . Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”

In other words, what good is a conscience if you can’t use it? Respect for what’s right should supersede respect for what’s legal. Sometimes, following existing laws can make a person a perpetrator of injustice. In our own time, think of border agents who may believe the child-separation policy is morally wrong. They must choose between obeying the law or obeying their consciences. Obeying one’s conscience, of course, can be costly; in this case, it could mean either resigning from their jobs or being fired for non-compliance. Either way, they would lose the means of support for themselves and their families. Sadly, following one’s conscience is a lofty ideal which may seem overwhelmingly impractical for many.

According to Thoreau, “Unjust laws exist.” The only question we must each ask ourselves is how we will respond to those laws: “Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” Rosa Parks obeyed the laws until she felt compelled to take a stand and draw the world’s attention to the law which unjustly robbed her of her human dignity by mandating where she could legally sit on a bus.

Thoreau was neither an anarchist nor a rabble rouser. He allows for tolerating certain injustices when the remedy may be worse than the evil. “But if [the law] is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” In summary, he says, “What I have to do is to see . . . that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.” Hypocrisy and violating the principles of one’s conscience are, in other words, graver wrongs than breaking a law which requires perpetrating an injustice on a fellow human.

Martin Luther King Jr. distinguishes between just laws and unjust laws in his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” He begins:

“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just and there are unjust laws. I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’”

Here’s how he distinguishes between the two types of laws:

“A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.”

He adds:

“Let us turn to a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.”

In his essay “Three Ways of Meeting Oppression,” King says many oppressed people simply acquiesce to their condition because fighting against it is too hard and too exhausting. Then he cautions, “But this is not the way out. To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system; thereby the oppressed become as evil as the oppressor. Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.” Some of our Republican senators should heed that precept as they eagerly cooperate with the evil rush to ramrod through a replacement for Justice Ginsburg after many people have already cast their ballots for the president they want to fill her seat.

Civil disobedience, as advocated by Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and others, is the act of identifying laws that are unjust, immoral, and oppressive and refusing obedience to those laws. Obviously, careful distinctions must be made. An unjust law is not an inconvenient or annoying law; it is a law which requires you and me to act in an immoral way, to become an oppressor of a fellow human or group of fellow humans.

The mandate to wear a mask to prevent transmission of a deadly disease is not an unjust law, and there is no moral ground on which to refuse obedience. There are only ignorance, selfishness, and disrespect. Wearing a mask may be inconvenient and perhaps annoying, but it does not, in Thoreau’s words, require you to be the agent of injustice to another person; it does not violate, in King’s words, the moral law or the law of God. The law’s purpose is to save your life, not to oppress you. If Thoreau and King were alive today, they might say “This is a stupid hill to die on.”

What HDT, MLK, and RBG all–by their writings and by their examples–encouraged us to do is be active citizens. Passively accepting laws, just because they’re laws, is cooperation with evil if the law is unjust. Some laws, like slavery and Jim Crow, were never just or defensible; others, like those RBG fought against, were based on outdated norms and mores. The duty of active citizens is to use our voices and our influence to fight real injustice, not to waste our time and our voices whining about wearing a mask, not being able to get a haircut or manicure, or having to wait in line to enter Trader Joe’s and Costco during a pandemic.

The law is not sacrosanct. It is a living organism; it must grow and change to keep pace with change in the social order. Thoreau and King allowed for breaking unjust laws; Notorious RBG used the power of her position to change many of the unjust laws which robbed certain people of their human dignity and required humans to be agents of injustice to other humans. Now that mantle has been passed to each of us:

“Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”

Of those “178 laws that differentiate on the basis of sex,” that are “obstacles to our children’s aspirations,” how many still exist? How many others exist? As RBG taught us, “We all must take these laws on, one by one, for as long as it takes, for [our children’s] sakes.” Call it dissent, call it civil disobedience, just do it.

Each of us has both a need to make a living and an obligation to contribute toward a world that’s worth living in. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid.” She left the world a better place than she found it; let the same be said of us who carry on her legacy.

Politics

Snow, Rain, and Gloom of Night

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date September 16, 2020
No Comments on Snow, Rain, and Gloom of Night

I’ve done my share of grumbling about the postal service. There was the mail carrier at my long-time home in Florida who consistently put my mail in neighbors’ boxes and neighbors’ mail in my box or occasionally left packages on the wrong porches. Part of the daily mailbox run was walking to the neighbors’ houses delivering the misplaced envelopes and parcels to the proper boxes and porches.

When I moved into a condo the last 18 months of my life in Florida, all of the mailboxes were together by the swimming pool. During the entire 18 months I lived there, I received mail for every previous resident of that condo; and when I got tired of writing on each envelope, I just started dropping them into the outgoing mail slot, figuring that would be enough to let the delivery person know they didn’t belong there. Nope. It worked for a while, then the new carrier started putting the envelopes right back into my box. You found this in outgoing mail. What should that tell you?

Then there was the time just a few months ago, after I had made my epic move right smack in the middle of a pandemic and was dependent on online ordering to get the things I needed for my new condo. I had ordered a pad to go under one of the rugs I bought. The company shipped the pad via USPS, and one morning I found a colored slip of paper in my mailbox (also the kind where all of the boxes are together), saying “Sorry we missed you. We attempted to deliver a package, will try again.” Mind you, this is a set of drive-by mailboxes; my little cubicle is possibly 3 inches high by maybe 10-12 inches wide and about that deep. You could probably have looked at that package at the post office and figured out that it wasn’t going to fit in any mailbox on the planet. And what do you mean you’re sorry you missed me? Were you really expecting to find me in that little box? Did you ring the bell and I didn’t come to the door? I was speechless; well, maybe not really speechless, but nothing I said would be decent to repeat here. The next day, I received a second note saying they were sorry to have missed me again.

After that, I left a response in the box, which I also won’t repeat here, because now that the post office is in so much trouble, I have to admit I’ve been feeling pretty guilty about that one. (I didn’t use any curse words, so at least there’s that.)

I’ve often told my children that the world we currently live in is so much different from the world in which I spent my youth that it’s almost as if I’ve moved to another planet. It would be easier to name the things that have stayed the same than the things that have changed, but high on that short list of things which have remained constant throughout my life is the six-day-every-week mail delivery. Except for holidays, there’s rarely been a day in my life when I have not checked the mailbox and anticipated what treasures I might find. Before email and Zoom, I fondly remember getting letters. Those were exciting, almost exotic! I come from a huge family, spread out over the entire United States and into northern Mexico, so we received many letters from aunts and uncles and grandparents. I can still remember the thrill of seeing a Mexico postmark, knowing it was news from my Uncle Lavee and his family.

The “mailman” was one of our favorite people–and powerful! He could rouse sleeping dogs into full attack mode (still can), make little children feel special with his friendly smile, bring joy to homes with news from distant loved ones, and deliver needed commodities to homebound neighbors. The importance of this job is caricatured in one of my favorite Cheers characters: the pompous know-it-all Cliff Clavin, who is rarely seen in anything but his blue postal uniform and who sees being a postal carrier as only slightly below knighthood.

Operating under the unofficial motto “Neither snow nor rain nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds,” those blue-uniformed men (and later women) made their way to my mailbox every day–some days pretty late during heavy volume times like Christmas. Oh, remember the Christmas cards! And we knew that, if we just did our part by getting our packages to the post office on time, the post office would work overtime to do its part by delivering them to their destinations in time for Santa’s arrival.

Mail-in voting in the form of “absentee ballots” dates back to the Civil War, when it was allowed for military personnel. Absentee ballots have been used continuously since that time for military voters as well as citizens unable to go to physical polling places. My former in-laws voted absentee because of my mother-in-law’s disability. In more recent years, five states have moved to voting almost completely by mail: Hawaii, Utah, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. And an increasing number of other states are either making efforts to change to a mail-in system or are offering mail-in ballots as an option for all voters. My former state, Florida, has for a number of years been strongly encouraging mail-in voting. I opted for it several elections ago, because I found I could vote more effectively at home where I had access to information about the less familiar items on the ballot, which don’t receive the same level of hype as presidential candidates.

Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined the post office–the post office!–becoming the epicenter of a political battle and a tool in the hands of a power-hungry president hoping to become a dictator. I’m not sure I could tell you the names of three Postmasters General during my life, but now Louis DeJoy is one of the first names mentioned on the nightly news. What is supposed to be a completely a-political government agency, like the Justice Department, is–like the Justice Department–being used by an unscrupulous political party as its personal accomplice.

Together, Donald Trump and his henchman Louis DeJoy have moved quickly to cripple the postal service ahead of the upcoming election, because Trump has been building hysteria over the long-standing practice of absentee or mail-in voting (same thing!). Trump knows the more people who vote the smaller the percentage likely to vote for him, so he has worked feverishly to suppress voting, including getting himself a new Postmaster General who, like his Attorney General William Barr, will be willing to forget that he’s supposed to be working for the American Public and not acting as the president’s personal hit man.

Mail collection boxes have been removed from the streets or left in place but locked so as to render them useless. Sorting machines have been removed from distribution centers. They have also cut overtime and limited post office hours, causing massive delivery delays. Although public outcry caused DeJoy to stop short of completing some of the changes and to reverse others, enough damage has already been done to cast doubt on whether the USPS is ready to deliver the ballots for this November in time for everyone’s vote to be counted. These are the kinds of things that, if we were reading about their happening in another country, we’d be shocked and outraged. But since the last four years have numbed our ability to be shocked, now it’s just another news cycle. Who’s the shithole country now?

Much of the current controversy centers on the USPS’s financial stability. In Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s opening remarks to the Board of Governors on August 7, 2020, he said:

“That said, I am a realist, and am keenly aware of the magnitude of the financial challenges we face. Our financial position is dire, stemming from substantial declines in mail volume, a broken business model and a management strategy that has not adequately addressed these issues. As a result, the Postal Service has experienced over a decade of financial losses, with FY 2019 approaching $9 billion and 2020 closing in on $11 billion in losses. Without dramatic change, there is no end in sight, and we face an impending liquidity crisis.”

These are legitimate concerns, and if an overhaul is in order, it would not be the first time in our history that the postal service has been reorganized to keep up with current demands. Electronic communication has reduced many people’s reliance on letters delivered to physical mailboxes. Many packages are delivered by rival private for-profit businesses such as UPS and FedEx. For many people, checks have been replaced by direct deposit, wire transfers, and electronic transfer services such as PayPal and Venmo. Yet many do still rely on the postal service for those services, and for all of us it is still a vital part of our staying connected and receiving the goods and commodities we need.

More importantly, if an overhaul is genuinely needed for the reasons Mr. DeJoy mentions, doesn’t it seem a tad coincidental that massive restructuring would be started less than three months before an election, and especially an election which because of health concerns will depend more heavily than usual on mail-in voting? Doesn’t it also seem a bit odd that those high-speed sorting machines which were already there and already paid for would be disassembled and pushed into a corner–to accomplish what? One doesn’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to see what’s happening here.

Many are calling for privatizing mail delivery, or breaking up the government agency’s monopoly and allowing private companies to compete. We already do that with package delivery, so why not letters and other services also? I don’t know what the future of the United States Postal Service will look like, but I believe it’s important for every citizen to understand what it is now and the history which has led it to this point.

This is a collection of facts about the postal service, in no particular order, which many people in my age range already know. However, it’s a good review for all of us and a fact check for younger people who may be hearing conflicting arguments about the value of this American institution.

So let’s sort out the FACTS:

The U. S. Postal Service is a department of the U. S. Government.
The postal service is NOT a private business. UPS, FedEx, DHL, and that shiny fleet of blue Amazon vans are private delivery services.
Government services are not expected to turn a profit; they are supported by our tax dollars and by our payment for services.
Private delivery services (such as UPS and FedEx) are for-profit businesses.
If a government service is in the red, it means that it needs more funding or better management or both. That is the job of Congress and of the Board of Governors appointed to run the USPS.
The responsibility “to establish Post offices and post roads” is among the powers accorded to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
As a government agency, the postal service is not intended to turn a profit. Private businesses are for-profit organizations; government agencies are public services, funded by tax payers.
Also included in Congress’s list of powers in Article I, Section 8 are, among others, coining money, protecting copyrights and patents, raising and supporting armies, providing and maintaining a navy, and organizing and managing the militia. I haven’t heard anyone complaining that the mint, the copyright office, the army, or the navy isn’t turning a profit. We may debate over the appropriate amount of military funding, but we don’t expect a return on our investment–other than, of course, our safety.
The centralized postal service has been in continuous operation since 1775 when the Second Continental Congress ordered the United States Post Office (USPO). This was the first national mail service; before that time, mail delivery had been handled by individual colonies and communities.
Journalists led the push for a national mail service, which they believed was necessitated by the urgency of connecting the colonies and sharing news of national importance as the revolution was brewing.
Benjamin Franklin was appointed the first Postmaster General.
After the Revolution, George Washington created the U.S. Post Office Department (USPOD) in 1792, based on Article I, Section 8 of the new constitution.
From 1792 until 1971, the Postmaster General was a member of the President’s cabinet.
On August 12, 1970, following unrest among postal employees which led to a major strike over low wages and poor working conditions, President Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act.
That act replaced the cabinet-level post office department with a new federal agency, the United States Postal Service (USPS), effective July 1, 1971.
The new agency is described as a corporation-like independent agency with an official monopoly on the delivery of mail in the United States. The key word in that sentence is “like.” The USPS is a government agency, not a for-profit corporation.
The first paragraph of the 1970 Postal Reorganization Act clearly describes the structure and responsibilities of the USPS:

“The United States Postal Service shall be operated as a basic and fundamental service provided to the people by the Government of the United States, authorized by the Constitution, created by Act of Congress, and supported by the people. The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.”

18. The governing body of the USPS is the Board of Governors, comprised of up to nine governors; they elect the Postmaster General.

19. Interesting side fact: The first postage stamps were issued in 1847. Before that time, letters were sent C.O.D., with the receiver picking up the letter and paying for its delivery. According to sources, some people resisted the change to having senders pay in advance. Some felt it was an insult to the receiver, suggesting the receiver was too poor or too cheap to pay for his/her own mail.

20. Things the USPS delivers besides letters and junk mail: medications, Social Security checks, income tax refunds, absentee ballots, plants and animals to farmers. There’s one I didn’t know: Farmers receive baby chicks by mail. I read one account of a woman who received a box of 500 newly hatched chicks, of which only 25 were alive because their delivery had been delayed by the antics of Trump and DeJoy.

The next time you grumble about the postal service, as we all will, here are a few other facts to remember.

The USPS employs 469,934 of our fellow citizens, 40% of whom are minorities.
Those 469,934 public servants help to deliver 472.1 million pieces of mail every day.
Sometimes they put things in the wrong boxes, lose a few things, run late, or leave ridiculous notes. Sometimes the barista at Starbucks serves you a cappuccino when you asked for a frappuccino or an iced cold brew when you ordered a hot coffee. Sometimes your restaurant chef sends out a well-done steak when you specifically said medium rare. Sometimes your server neglects to refill your water glass. Sometimes your English professor gives you a B on that brilliant essay when it clearly deserved an A (right!). Mistakes happen in all professions, and most of them are not fatal. Any agency that can process and deliver 470,000 pieces of mail every day, six days a week, at affordable prices, to all neighborhoods, deserves our gratitude and admiration.

The postal service is a treasured American institution which we must not allow to be destroyed by political partisanship or by unethical power mongers. We should all heed the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 42:

“The power of establishing post roads must, in every view, be a harmless power, and may, perhaps, by judicious management, become productive of great public conveniency. Nothing which tends to facilitate the intercourse between the States can be deemed unworthy of the public care.”

Today’s reality is that high-level officials are using this constitutional power to do harm and to serve their own political ambitions. Therefore, those of us who benefit from it must accept our responsibility to care for it. If every one of us would just do the simple act of buying a sheet of stamps, we could infuse the USPS with millions of operating dollars. We the people must step up and save the institutions we treasure. That is the true definition of “conservative.”

Tags USPS

Politics Religion

The Christian Right Is Neither

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date September 13, 2020
No Comments on The Christian Right Is Neither

If you’re reading this article in 2020, you will notice that many of the specific facts are outdated: Hillary Clinton as Donald Trump’s political opponent, the disgraced Jerry Falwell Jr. as a leader respected among evangelicals, and others. I wrote the article in 2016, but I am re-publishing it because the Christian Right has continued to be ardent supporters of Donald Trump and have continued to be a political force at odds with their stated belief system.

When it’s difficult to see daylight between the alt-right and the Christian right, we’ve wandered into dangerously wrong territory. Today’s Republican Party has made strange bedfellows of some seemingly divergent groups: KKK sympathizers, alt-right thugs, the gun lobby, and others; and in the middle of them all is the “Christian” right, evangelicals whose voices are in unison with philosophies that undermine and threaten to destroy our republic and the values which we have always held inviolable. On the surface, it’s impossible to see what could unite groups that should be at opposite poles.

This strange new coalition which has formed under the umbrella of the Republican Party is not Christian, not conservative, and not Republican. The Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and even Ronald Reagan is so far from the party of 2016 that the two shouldn’t be called by the same name.

Republicans have proudly called themselves the Christian party and the family-values party, yet in 2016 they have nominated and are supporting and defending a candidate who has lived his life by the opposite of any definition of Christianity I know. And his campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, has ties to the darkest elements from the underbelly of American civilization. At Breitbart news, he, according to Sarah Posner of Mother Jones, “created an online haven for white nationalists.”

The new Republican Coalition is not conservative. Louis Guenin, in one of my all-time favorite articles called “Why Voters Should Turn from the Pseudoconservative Party of the Great Recession” (Huffington Post, 24 Dec 2012), offers this definition of conservatism:

Conservatism, as eloquently introduced by Edmund Burke (1729–1797), advocates esteem for government and established institutions. It holds that within them lies an accumulated wisdom that citizens and their leaders should respect and consult. Revering the established order, its constitution, and its history, conservatism cultivates a cautious disposition. Legislators should proceed by careful deliberation guided by the counsel of prudence. Policy should change incrementally. When government errs, all citizens should, in Burke’s words, “approach to the faults of the state as to the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude.”

Has anyone seen any esteem for government at the Republican presidential rallies of 2015 and 2016? I’ve seen angry mobs screaming their rejection of “the established order,” chanting for the opposing party’s candidate to be locked up, rejecting the politics that has made our country what it is. The “accumulated wisdom” which Edmund Burke says leaders “should respect and consult” is derided as “political correctness,” which they see as having too long constrained them from expressing their baser instincts toward their fellow citizens of different race, skin color, religion, gender, or sexuality.

The campaign chief said this week, “What we need to do is bitch-slap” the Republican Party, expressing his anger at the “party elites” who are not falling in line behind the rogue nominee. He went on to add, “Get those guys heeding too, and if we have to, we’ll take it over to make it a true conservative party.” His definition of “conservative” is obviously quite different from Edmund Burke’s definition.

The new Republican Coalition knows nothing of caution, prudence, or respect for traditional American values. The scorched-earth politics that allows low and dirty stunts such as bringing people from an opponent’s past to a debate to bully and intimidate her and a candidate’s declaring himself free from the shackles that have bound him to party principles and now in a position to declare war on the party doesn’t sound conservative by any definition. Other language I’ve heard this week is that Donald Trump wants to burn down the party if it won’t play his way.

The opposite of conservative is not liberal; most liberals better fit the definition of conservatism than today’s “conservatives” do. The opposite of conservative is contemptuous: contempt for the established order, for American politics, for our constitution, for their fellow citizens, for anyone who disagrees with them.

The new Republican Coalition is not conservative, and it’s not Republican. The founding father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, devoted the last four years of his life to preserving our union when a racist, white supremacist group of states were determined to destroy it. In his second inaugural address, Lincoln eloquently said:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

The coalition at work today under the banner of the Party of Lincoln seeks not to bind up wounds and create peace but to inflict wounds and perpetuate conflict.

Earlier in his address, Lincoln said, contrasting the state of the nation at the time of his second inaugural address with its state when he gave his first inaugural address: “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.” I think we’re seeing that same tension today. None of us want discord and strife, but some would rather accept disunity than compromise to bring about peace and harmony.

We have to recognize, of course, that Donald Trump did not destroy the Party of Lincoln; they destroyed themselves, and Trump is the result, not the cause. A Donald Trump could never have secured the Republican nomination for the presidency until the climate was right for it, and in 2016, it’s perfect.

In David Brooks’s article “The Governing Cancer of Our Time” (26 Feb 2016), Brooks explains that in a “big, diverse society,” there are “essentially two ways to maintain order and to get things done”: “politics or some form of dictatorship,” “compromise or brute force.” Having said that politics involves compromise and deal-making in an effort to please as many within the diverse group of people as possible, Brooks assesses what has led to the state of Lincoln’s party today:

Over the past generation we have seen the rise of a generation of people who are against politics. These groups—best exemplified by the Tea Party but not exclusive to the Right—want to elect people who have no political experience. They want “outsiders.” They delegitimize compromise and deal-making. They’re willing to trample the customs and rules that give legitimacy to legislative decision making if it helps them gain power.

That attitude is greatly at odds with Lincoln’s goal to “achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

The Republican Party freed the slaves and granted them citizenship; the new Republican Coalition wants to trample the rights of citizens of color. The new coalition has become the home of the alt-right white supremacists and KKK sympathizers who would destroy every bit of progress we have made in racial relations.

The new Republican Coalition is not conservative, it’s not republican, and it’s not Christian. Most shocking and perplexing of all those who now profess allegiance to this wing of the Republican Party are evangelical “Christians.” According to a new PPRI/The Atlantic survey released this week, “Nearly two-thirds (65%) of white evangelical voters remain committed to supporting Trump, while only 16% say they favor Clinton.” Among other Christian groups, the survey says support is more evenly divided.

The fact that two-thirds of the most vocal Christian group rabidly stand behind a candidate whose life and values are the polar opposite of their professed beliefs simply defies logical explanation. That their voices are indistinguishable from those of white supremacists and all manner of bigots is at odds with Christ’s words on Christianity. A group of Pharisees asked Jesus, the founder of the Christian faith, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” Jesus’ simple response was

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22: 37-40)

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In other words, it’s that simple. If you get those two things right, you’ve got it. Don’t fret over the details.

Micah 6:8 is powerful in its simplicity:

He has told you, O mortal, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

Joining forces with a coalition that demands justice for only certain citizens, that hates our government and our politics, that seeks to destroy whatever justice for all we’ve managed to achieve does not fulfill the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves or to love justice and kindness.

Often being the nasty voices in social media discussions also fails to demonstrate a love of kindness or love of other people. Presenting themselves as God’s spokespersons to silence anyone who disagrees with their narrow stance only alienates, especially when what they’re saying is filled with scorn and hatred, and is not in the spirit of walking humbly with their God. Memes about jailing Hillary Clinton, virtual high fives every time they hear Trump talking about locking her up—how do these show justice, love, or humility? They’ve adopted what David Brooks calls “the bashing style of rhetoric that makes conversation impossible.”

Defending lewd, vulgar talk and behavior and condoning sexual assault because it didn’t happen this week shows no love for one’s fellow humans. Claiming that one candidate has been forgiven by God’s grace but that the other cannot be and deserves only punishment is not only theologically screwed up, it’s not loving or kind.

When innocent children are gunned down in their little school desks, these loving, god-fearing people shrug their shoulders and say, “Bummer! But we can’t do anything because Second Amendment.” Ya know, God, guns, glory. Sorry, parents!

I listened to an interview last night with Jerry Falwell Junior, the president of Liberty University, the largest Christian university in the world; he defended Trump, says he still plans to vote for him, and nobody’s perfect. And he cited James Dobson, another prominent evangelical guru, as agreeing with him.

Falwell pointed out that Jesus was often criticized for dining with sinners. Yes, Doctor Falwell, you are correct. Jesus dined with whoever came to him, including those scorned by the Pharisees, religious elite and chief hypocrites of the day. But there’s a BIG difference. Jesus hung out with them and broke bread with them, but he didn’t talk like them; and his life and values were clearly distinguishable from theirs. He associated with them without becoming one of them. He didn’t adopt their attitudes or defend their lifestyles. He shut down the hypocrites who were persecuting the woman at the well and sent her on her way with the words “Go and sin no more.” He wouldn’t allow her to be judged, but he encouraged her to adopt a healthier lifestyle. His voice was always distinct from the voices of the people to whom he showed love and compassion by dining with them.

The majority of evangelicals I’ve talked to are single-issue voters. The candidate who says (this week) that he opposes abortion gets their vote, regardless of what else he does or stands for. This is what the Bible they claim to follow calls “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.” I’m not saying abortion is a tiny issue; it’s an important issue, but it’s ONE issue. If we elect someone to a powerful office because of his or her stance on this one issue but ignore gross violations on dozens of other issues, that’s not godly. If we love justice, as Micah so eloquently suggests we should, we will seek justice for all.

How did this unlikely coalition come together? What is the unifying element? Matthew McWilliams, who conducted a national poll of 1800 registered voters, says, “I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.” Bingo! This is what the alt-right and the Christian right have in common: the inclination to follow strong leaders (Falwell Sr. and Jr., James Dobson, Joel Osteen). It’s what David Brooks calls the opposite of politics. Yes, politics is messy, Brooks says, but the only alternative is the dictatorial leader; and that alternative has never ended well for any nation. We should be careful what we wish for!

Most deeply frightening is what will happen on November 9, 2016. As Americans, we’ve always prided ourselves on a peaceful transfer of power. Does anyone see Donald J. Trump making a sad but gracious concession speech and promising to get behind President Clinton to keep our country great? He’s already threatened to jail his opponent if he wins, and his supporters are already talking about revolution if he loses.

On November 9, I hope we will all—Republicans, Democrats, and everything in between—remember the words of Abraham Lincoln:

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Politics Religion

Not Your Old-Time Religion

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date September 13, 2020
No Comments on Not Your Old-Time Religion

One of the most baffling, perplexing, even maddening questions of our time is how the “Christian right,” “the far right,” “the evangelicals” have become such a powerful political force and how on earth that movement has thrown its considerable clout behind such an unlikely standard bearer as Donald Trump. I have wrestled with this question, as have many others, for the past several years; and finally I’m ready to offer my answer: The “Christian right” has ceased to be a religious tradition and now exists only as a powerful political movement. In its current expression, evangelicalism bears no resemblance to a faith community except in its use of the Bible and religious dogma as weapons with which to clobber anyone who disagrees with them.

Let’s look at a little history which may shed some light on what has brought us to the place where we now find ourselves. Many of us would have little reason to care about the history of evangelicalism, what evangelicals believe, or whom they will vote for in the next presidential election. That all changed in 2016, when Russia and the evangelicals (the oddest of odd couples) chose our president. Evangelicals were the largest demographic group among Trump supporters in 2016, with 80-81% being the official number compiled from exit polls of self-professed evangelicals who cast their votes for Trump. Evangelicals continue to stand by their man, and a recent Public Opinion Strategies poll reports that 83% of them intend to vote for him again in 2020. Without this group’s overwhelming support, it’s highly unlikely that Donald Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today. Therefore, I think it behooves us all to take a closer look at who these people are who can’t get enough of guns, cruelty toward refugees, and the most unfit person ever to disgrace the office of POTUS.

Two religious groups in the United States which are often conflated are fundamentalists and evangelicals. According to NPR’s Steve Waldman and John Green, these two groups are not the same but do have certain elements in common. Evangelicalism is a broader movement, of which fundamentalism is a stricter, more conservative, far less tolerant subset. So I think it’s accurate to say that all fundamentalists are evangelicals, but not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. The National Association of Evangelicals’ website quotes historian David Bebbington’s summary of four core distinctives which define evangelical belief: conversion (being “born again”), activism (missionary and reform efforts), biblicism (the Bible as the ultimate authority), and crucicentrism (Jesus’ death as redeeming humanity).

Fundamentalist evangelicals also believe these four distinctives but add to them. Whereas all evangelicals believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, fundamentalists also believe in a literal reading of the Bible; not only, in their view, is the Bible the final source of truth, but they believe every story, metaphor, and poem are literal historic records. Fundamentalists are also, among other things, far more isolationist than other evangelicals. They take literally the New Testament command to “ come out from among them and be ye separate” (II Corinthians 6:17). “Them,” by the way, fundamentalists interpret to mean “the world”–which incorporates everyone who does not share their worldview. They cannot recognize the legitimacy of Catholicism as a Christian faith because it is so different in theology and practice from their own narrow view of what constitutes Christianity. An overriding attitude of judgment against even other evangelicals who take a broader view of certain subjects further isolates fundamentalists into a tight-knit community whose primary goal in life is to avoid being “defiled” by anything which contradicts their beliefs.

The term “evangelicalism” has defied precise definition or agreement on its origin, but many see its roots in early 17^th-century changes in the church. Fundamentalism is generally seen as a late 19^th-, early 20^th-century offshoot that arose in response to social and academic developments such as Darwinism, liberalism, and modernism. Leaders’ attempts to articulate and define the non-negotiable core Christian beliefs resulted in the 1910 publication of a multi-volume set of essays, edited by Reuben Torrey, titled The Fundamentals. Those who accepted this distillation of Christian theology came to be known as fundamentalists.

This little history is greatly over-simplified but serves to provide a general framework for the rise of the movement which has now given us a reality TV show presidency. It’s important to add that not all who call themselves Christians fall into either of these two camps, evangelicalism and fundamentalism. These two just seem to comprise the vocal, disruptive element that has co-opted the modern Republican Party.

Fundamentalists have earned the reputation of being anti-intellectual because of their rejecting Darwin’s findings and other scientific information which doesn’t coincide with their literal reading of the Genesis creation account and the great flood story among others. Witness their current denial of climate science, and no more needs to be said.

Fundamentalist thought has been widely influenced by leaders such as Dwight Moody, Bob Jones Sr., Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell Jr., Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, and Franklin Graham. What all of these men have in common is their belief in a literal, inerrant Bible; their disdain for anyone who deviates from their narrow view and their dismissal of such people as not “real Christians”; and their view that the United States is a Christian nation and should therefore be ruled by Biblical precepts–or should I say, their interpretation of Biblical precepts.

When asked how a group, which professes to believe in the literal interpretation and inerrancy of the Bible and labels themselves the sole upholders and defenders of Biblical conduct and morality, can so enthusiastically embrace and defend the likes of DT–who violates every moral principle they claim to hold dear–their only answer is that “God often used imperfect instruments in events recorded in the Bible.” No argument there. The Old Testament gives us King David, who lusted after another man’s wife while she bathed on the rooftop, sent his servants to fetch her, had sex with her, impregnated her with his son, sent her military husband off to the front lines where he was sure to be killed, and then married her. In the New Testament, we learn that David was an ancestor of Christ and “a man after God’s own heart.”

David alone would make it pretty clear that, if all accounts are accurate, God’s not looking for perfection. But just to strengthen the case, we have Noah who celebrated safely landing the ark by getting passed-out drunk; Abraham who–impatient with waiting for God to fulfill the promise of giving him an heir–took the matter into his own hands and had sex with the maid; Rahab the prostitute, also in Jesus’ bloodline; Jonah who ran from God’s command to warn the people of Nineveh because they were wicked and, in his opinion, unworthy of God’s mercy; Matthew the tax collector, a profession generally thought to employ the scum of the earth; and Saul the persecutor of Christians who became Paul, the greatest missionary of his day for spreading the Christian faith. I think we get the picture.

Yet if the only thing that can be said in defense of electing a person to the office of president is that he’s no worse than a few people in the Bible, that’s some very thin ice.

What makes evangelicals tick? How can they be won over to a cause or a candidate? For one thing, they have long been conditioned to follow the rules out of fear: fear of hell (real flames here), fear of shame, fear of disapproval by bigger-than-life leaders, fear of ostracization. Donald Trump tapped into that fear in his very first speech, when he broad-brushed all Mexicans as murderers and rapists and continues to stir up fear to persuade supporters to go along with his cruel policies. Never mind that most mass shooters in this country have been white male citizens and we’ve done nothing to curtail gun violence, let’s build a giant wall to keep all of those Mexicans out because a few have committed horrible crimes. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Evangelicals have also been conditioned to accept their literal reading of the Bible over the hard evidence of science. The flood really happened, and the earth really was created in six days, just 6000 years ago–science be damned. Anything not specifically covered in the Bible can easily be “proven” with a cherry-picked verse or two. Thus, the exclusion of LGBTQ people because . . . Leviticus. And some have validated their prejudice against black Americans with the story about the black race being descended from Noah’s son Ham, who was cursed for some not altogether clear reason and his descendants supposedly doomed to a life of servitude–to the end of time. Yeah, that really was taught.

With so much credence given to faith over fact, revelation over reason, is it such a stretch to understand why those same people would take the word of the person they’ve been told was sent by God over the word of fact finders, scientists, psychologists, journalists, and other smart people? Is it any wonder that they view all intellectuals with suspicion? With their conditioned response of separatism and superiority to those who see the world differently, of believing they’re the ones with the inside track to God, their blind loyalty to a criminal “president” shouldn’t be the least bit surprising.

Another characteristic of the modern evangelical and fundamentalist movements is their adulation of rock-star leaders. Although many outside those circles may know the names of only the most notorious–the Grahams, the Falwells, maybe the Joneses–ask any fundamentalist about Bill Hybels, Jack Hyles, Tony Perkins, Tim LaHaye, James Dobson, and there will be instant recognition. Different groups will give more or less respect to different names, but the names are known and revered by at least some subgroups. These are the gurus whose word is truth, whose pronouncements set policy, and whose approval is oxygen to their followers.

Should it then come as any surprise at all when one of those esteemed celebrities puts his arm around a man who in no way represents their stated beliefs or anything they ever learned in Sunday school and says “This person is sent by God to protect and preserve our nation,” the masses accept that pronouncement as divine truth and follow that man as fervently as they follow the leaders who anointed him? Sadly, the leader who gets lost in the process is the one they profess to believe above all others: Jesus, who never endorsed any of this baloney.

Donald Trump’s immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, gave the clearest statement of his Christian faith I’ve ever heard from a sitting president. And he backed up his words with a moral and scandal-free life, a ready knowledge of Christian belief, and even a spontaneous rendering of the hymn “Amazing Grace” at a funeral. Contrast that with Donald Trump’s mention of “Two Corinthians” as the only evidence of biblical knowledge he could muster on the spot. Yet President Obama is reviled by evangelicals as a non-citizen Muslim, and Donald Trump is hailed by “a significant portion of his supporters [as] literally . . . an answer to their prayers. He is regarded as something of a messiah, sent by God to protect a Christian nation” (Bobby Azarian, Ph.D., in Psychology Today).

The so-called “Christian Right” has ceased to be Christian. Although they claim unquestioned allegiance to the Bible, I’m going to venture a guess that most have not read much of the Bible; and the parts they have read are twisted to support preconceived beliefs. If they bothered to read the book they claim to follow, they would have run across a few passages which define what the Christian faith actually is. When your only reason for reading the Bible is to find support for what you already believe, you’re missing a lot.

If one wanted to know what the Christian faith is really all about, Micah 6:8 is a one-verse primer: “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think locking children in filthy cages with no access to hygiene supplies, adequate food, human touch, or even a real blanket qualifies as justice, kindness, or a humble walk with God. Then again, these children are brown, so perhaps they’re excluded from the general rules? Somehow I can’t imagine those same fine Christian people looking the other way or sending their attorneys to court to defend such treatment of white children.

James 1:27 echoes Micah’s summary: ^“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” “Care for the orphans and widows in their distress.” Yet allowing Puerto Rican Americans to languish in distress after a hurricane, desperate for the bare essentials of life, isn’t given a place on the “conservative” agenda. Nor are the children in the concentration camps or the families without health insurance or the minimum-wage workers who can barely exist on their paychecks and who would be wiped out by one unanticipated expense.

Then there’s Jesus’ own quick summary of what faith is meant to be. Asked by a Pharisee, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest,” Jesus responded: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40). “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” In other words, the whole Old Testament is summed up in 28 words, further reduced to “Love God and love your fellow humans.”

Jesus reiterates those points a few chapters further on, in Matthew 25. There he gives a metaphorical description of a judgment of the nations, in which the nations will be divided into two groups: sheep and goats. The sole criterion for the division is the way in which the nations have treated the disadvantaged, “the least of these.” The sheep are those who have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, clothed the naked, cared for the sick, and visited the prisoner. The goats are the ones who have not done any of that. Those examples illustrate what it means to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Notice the pattern here? What do all of these passages have in common? Each one defines faith as the acknowledgment of God and the loving treatment of one’s fellow humans. Nothing else. Nada. Not abortion, LGBTQ people, public bathrooms, right to bear arms. Nothing but loving God and loving each other. Anything added to those two distinctives is politics, not faith. It’s the attempt to weaponize faith as a means to gain power and control.

When fundamentalists formed not only their own churches but their own schools–pre-K through college–they made it possible to immerse a large enough population in their so-called theology to gain the numbers needed for the political clout they strove for. Today their information network has expanded to include news outlets, mainly one: Fox News. It’s like a virtual commune in which it’s possible to live and die without ever being exposed to any other ideas than those spouted by their powerful leaders. And just recently came this announcement:

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has signed legislation permitting Briarwood Presbyterian Church to establish its own police force for its church and school campuses. The law approved two weeks ago allows the Birmingham-based church to set-up a private law enforcement department to make arrests when crimes are committed on its properties. (Patheos.com)

Legitimate concerns about this move include the strong possibility that such a police force would lead to further cover-up of crimes like sexual assault, since the enforcers would be guided more by their loyalty to the church than by their loyalty to the law of the land.

It should be clear by now that the modern evangelical movement has divorced itself from every religious principle on which it was established and has devoted itself to the accumulation of political power. This phenomenon is nothing new. Theologian Richard Rohr says this:

“Christianity is a lifestyle–a way of being in the world that is simple, non-violent, shared, and loving. However, we made it into a ‘religion’ (and all that goes with that) and avoided the lifestyle change itself. One could be warlike, greedy, racist, selfish, and vain in most of Christian history, and still believe that Jesus is one’s ‘personal Lord and Savior’ . . . The world has no time for such silliness anymore. The suffering on Earth is too great.”

The Christian church has often stood on the wrong side of history. The church did not act to oppose either slavery or the many years of violence against the freed slaves and their descendants. Martin Luther King Jr., in a section of his well-known “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” delivers a strong rebuke against the white church in 1960s America:

I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say that as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say it as a minister of the gospel who loves the church, who was nurtured in its bosom, who has been sustained by its Spiritual blessings, and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen. I had the strange feeling when I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery several years ago that we would have the support of the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be some of our strongest allies. Instead, some few have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. In spite of my shattered dreams of the past, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and with deep moral concern serve as the channel through which our just grievances could get to the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say, follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother.

Abuses of power in the name of religion are not new, but we must never cease to call them what they are. Today’s evangelical movement is built not on faith but on white supremacy and white nationalism. Why else would a grifting, immoral, cruel, ignorant white con man be revered while an intelligent, honest, morally upright, kind, generous black man is reviled? Why else would a pious Senate Majority Leader be allowed to get away with violating the Constitution in whatever way is necessary to continue promoting the “conservative” agenda of discrediting and destroying the legacy of our only black president?

Frank Schaeffer Jr., former evangelical leader turned reasonable person, author of numerous books and articles, offers this history of the modern evangelical-political movement:

The 1970s Evangelical anti-abortion movement that Dad (Evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer), C. Everett Koop (who would be Ronald Reagan’s surgeon general) and I helped create seduced the Republican Party. We turned it into an extremist far-right party that is fundamentally anti-American. There would have been no Tea Party without the foundation we built.
The difference between now and then is that back then we were religious fanatics knocking on the doors of normal political leaders. Today the fanatics are the political leaders.
You can’t understand why the GOP was so successful in winning back both houses of congress in 2014, and wrecking most of what Obama has tried to do, unless you understand what we did back then.
You see, in the late 1960s Dad published the first of many best-selling evangelical books. When Dad toured evangelical colleges and churches all over North America, I often accompanied him while Mom and Dad — unbeknownst to them at the time — were gradually being elevated to Evangelical Protestant sainthood. This meant that a few years later when Dad took a “stand” on the issue of abortion, a powerful movement formed almost instantly, inspired by his leadership, and the evangelical-led “pro-life” movement (and the religious right) was born.
(My Horrible Right-Wing Past: Confessions of a One-Time Religious Right Icon, published in Salon)

Opposition to abortion became the rallying cry for a group also described by Schaeffer: “Evangelical Christianity was now [in the 1980s] more about winning elections than about winning souls.”

Saving unborn babies sounded much more Christian and noble than barring black students from universities such as Bob Jones University and forbidding interracial dating. Make no mistake, though: it’s always been about white male supremacy and the fear of losing that advantage to the influx of other races. Underlying all of the noble-sounding rhetoric, the one-issue litmus tests, and the religious veneer is the belief that there were “very fine people” on both sides of the Charlottesville tragedy and the claim that the Civil War was not really about slavery.

People who follow the simple precepts of loving God and loving each other don’t defend the “right” to own arsenals of deadly weapons; don’t shrug their shoulders and say there’s nothing we can do when the owner of one of those arsenals goes on a rampage and commits mass murder; don’t condone locking children in concentration camps; don’t laugh and applaud when an orange-haired cretin mocks war heroes, women who accuse him of sexual assault, handicapped people, the press, and anyone else who gets under his very thin skin; and they sure as hell don’t vote to elect that person to yet another four-year term as president. People looking for political power and the perpetuation of white nationalism do all of those things.

Let’s call it what it is.