WTF Community

📝 Must Read Op-Ed and Profiles

Yes, how far is too far?

MTG takes up all the oxygen in her off-kilter remarks and dangerous positions. She needs to be curtailed, or removed.

There’s still time for Republican leaders to reject Q.

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

How far is too far? This is the question Republican leaders are being forced to grapple with as the public outcry grows over one of their newest House members, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

The Georgia freshman is best known for endorsing QAnon, the right-wing movement convinced of the fiction that Donald Trump is a messiah sent to defeat a cabal of Satan-worshiping, child-abusing, deep-state villains. But this is just one of the bizarre lies she has peddled. Her greatest hits include promoting the conspiracy theory that blames the 2018 Camp Fire wildfire in California on a space laser controlled by a prominent Jewish banking family, suggesting the Obama administration used its MS-13 “henchmen” to murder a Democratic National Committee staff member and floating the idea that the Clintons had John F. Kennedy Jr. killed. She has dabbled in 9/11 Trutherism and contended that various school shootings were false-flag operations. She also traffics in racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim talk.

Ms. Greene does not draw the line at promoting bigotry and disinformation. Videos and social media posts from before she ran for Congress show her endorsing violence against those she sees as enemy combatants in an ongoing civil war. She has expressed support of social media calls to execute high-profile Democrats, including the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and F.B.I. agents. When asked about such activities, Ms. Greene has dodged, asserting that her pages have been run by “teams” of people over the years, some promoting views with which she does not agree. Many of the posts in question have since been scrubbed.

Ms. Greene’s behavior since her election has been troubling as well. She has peddled false claims that the presidential election was stolen and rife with fraud. She was among the 139 House Republicans who voted to overturn the results of the Electoral College on Jan. 6, even after a pro-Trump mob sacked the Capitol. On Jan. 17, Twitter briefly suspended her account for repeatedly violating its “civic integrity policy.”

The silence from Republican leaders has been deafening. That can’t continue if the party has any hope of reclaiming conservatism from nihilistic rot — something every American should be rooting for to maintain a healthy two-party system. Ms. Greene is now a member of the House of Representatives, with a prominent platform and real power to have impact on people’s lives. She has a responsibility to act — and speak — in the best interests of the American public and of the Constitution she has sworn to serve and defend. Peddling grotesque lies, cheering talk of political violence (which she claims to oppose) and fomenting sedition run counter to her oath of office.

With each new revelation, the calls to discipline Ms. Greene grow louder. Representative Jimmy Gomez, a Democrat from California, plans to introduce a resolution calling for her expulsion from Congress, which had at least 50 members signed on as of Friday. This approach is unlikely to succeed. While the Constitution gives both chambers of Congress wide latitude to punish members, expulsion, which requires a two-thirds majority to pass, has been used rarely over the centuries. Lawmakers prefer to leave it to voters to hand down such a sentence.

Representatives Nikema Williams of Georgia and Sara Jacobs of California plan to introduce a resolution to censure Ms. Greene. This penalty is imposed more frequently and requires only a simple majority to pass. It is meant to serve as a badge of shame. Of course, Ms. Greene, who revels in shamelessness, might well wear it as a badge of honor — evidence that a corrupt, elitist political establishment was out to get her.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida is among those calling for a more appropriate punishment: stripping Ms. Greene of her committee assignments. Critics are particularly incensed by Ms. Greene’s being placed on the education committee, in light of her deranged theories on school shootings.

Republicans have recent experience in this area. In 2019, the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, stripped Steve King of his committee posts for defending white nationalism in an interview with The Times. The Iowa lawmaker had a long history of racist remarks, for which voters had largely given him a pass. But losing his committee assignments did not simply mark Mr. King, it drained his influence and his ability to serve constituents. Mr. King lost his primary race last year, ending his nine terms in office.

Mr. McCarthy needs to take substantive action of this kind with Ms. Greene. Voters may have just chosen Ms. Greene to represent them, but her Republican colleagues have the leeway to declare that she does not represent them. When Ms. Greene’s statements about assassinating Ms. Pelosi surfaced, Mr. McCarthy’s office called them “deeply disturbing” and said he would have a talk with her about them this week. Mr. McCarthy has an opportunity to make clear that there are standards of decency and duty that transcend partisanship. Others are watching, within his conference and beyond.

Ms. Greene has thus far met criticism with defiance. “I will never back down. I will never give up,” she said in a statement on Friday, which included an ominous warning to her party. “If Republicans cower to the mob, and let the Democrats and the Fake News media take me out, they’re opening the door to come after every single Republican until there’s none left.”

Ms. Greene is correct that the Republican Party is facing a serious threat from an unhinged mob. She should know; she’s one of its leaders.

3 Likes
5 Likes

Republicans have revealed their true colors in the ugliest fashion — and too many liberals want to look away

3 Likes

Tucker Carlson should stop pretending he cares about the women and men in uniform

Brian Stelter of CNN notes that Tucker Carlson, Fox News Channel’s top-rated host, has become the “new Donald Trump” as the leading outrage generator on the populist right. Every night Carlson says something false and obscene: It’s his business model.

Last week, Carlson trained his insult machine on the U.S. military. He flashed a picture of a flight suit for pregnant women (actually developed during the Trump administration) and complained, “It’s a mockery of the U.S. military.” He went on to pontificate that “while China’s military becomes more masculine,” our military is becoming “more feminine, whatever feminine means anymore since men and women no longer exist. … It’s out of control, and the Pentagon is going along with this.”

This earned Carlson, who has never served a day in uniform, a well-deserved upbraiding from the Defense Department. There are 232,000 women serving on active duty, constituting 16.5 percent of the total force, and they routinely go into harm’s way. Indeed, recruiting and retaining women is essential to maintaining the U.S. military’s edge over China and other potential adversaries. Carlson’s sexist comments make that harder given how many troops watch Fox News. (It is routinely on in military gyms and chow halls.)

Defense Department spokesman John Kirby pledged that “we absolutely won’t … take personnel advice from a talk show host.” The Pentagon news site carried an article headlined: “Press Secretary Smites Fox Host That Dissed Diversity in U.S. Military.”

Many individual service members echoed Kirby’s outrage. My favorite example was a tweet from a Marine Corps veteran:

Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, brother of whistleblower Alexander Vindman, suggested that Fox News be taken off the American Forces Network and TV sets in military common areas. “This is bad for morale, good order and discipline,” he tweeted.

Carlson can dish out criticism but not take it. He spent the next night whining about how the Defense Department shouldn’t attack him — which he described as declaring “war on a domestic news operation.” (Wonder where he was when President Donald Trump was calling the media the “enemy of the people.”)

Has Carlson finally gone too far by taking on an institution revered by the country? It would be nice to think so. Sen. Joe McCarthy, after all, famously crashed and burned after he accused the U.S. Army of being a hotbed of subversives. “Have you no sense of decency?" demanded the Army’s lawyer, and McCarthy was finished.

Sadly, I don’t see that happening in this instance. The populist right has already made clear that its supposed devotion to the armed forces is entirely transactional: They will claim to be supporting the men and women who keep us safe if by doing so they can score points against the “libs.” But if the armed forces are an obstacle to their ruthless quest for total power, then they have no compunctions about turning on the troops.

Trump shows how the game is played. “I will always protect our great warfighters,” he claimed, yet he routinely insulted them. He accused troops in Iraq of stealing money, denied that John McCain was a war hero because he was captured, allegedly described soldiers who died in combat as “suckers and losers,” and reportedly called senior generals and admirals “a bunch of dopes and babies.”

The worst offenses that Trump committed against the armed forces were to pardon war criminals and to send troops to attack peaceful protesters. Those actions subvert the core professionalism of the military, which sees itself as an apolitical institution that follows the rule of law. Little wonder that public faith in the military eroded under Trump.

Of course, Trump knows nothing of the military or its ethos. He viewed the armed forces as if they were a MAGA militia. “I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad," Trump threatened his critics in 2019.

Yet there has been no backlash on the right against Trump despite all the ways that he and his followers have abused the armed forces. Likewise, there is no evidence of any right-wing backlash against Carlson for turning the military into collateral damage in the cultural wars.

Instead, right-wing author J.D. Vance, of “Hillbilly Elegy” fame, attacked military leaders for being too “woke” — a ludicrous charge to make against an overwhelmingly conservative officer corps. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Tex.) are defending Carlson and attacking the military. Expect to see more anti-military sentiment on the right now that the Defense Department is under a Democratic administration.

Tucker and Trump should stop pretending that they give a damn about the men and women who serve America. All they care about is self-promotion. They will happily sacrifice the troops on the altar of their own ambition — and their followers won’t care.

3 Likes

Dropping in value…the Trump empire…boo hoo

Trump’s Ailing Empire

His Fortune Slips to $2.3 Billion as Covid and Riot Take a Toll

Donald Trump upended the American presidency after stepping away from the company that made him rich and famous. Four years later, returning to his empire after losing the White House, what he finds may upend him.

Trump’s net worth is down to $2.3 billion from $3 billion when he became president, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. The pandemic he promised would disappear is walloping his company, and the riot that got him impeached for a second time is wounding his brand.

More information here…but you need to pass thru the "Are you a Robot?’ test.

2 Likes

Why aren’t we calling the Capitol attack an act of treason?

There has been little public discussion of the term as the framework for understanding what happened on 6 January, experts say

During Donald Trump’s presidency, the UC Davis law professor Carlton Larson spent a lot of time on the phone telling journalists: “It’s not treason.”

Trump’s behavior towards Russia: not treason. All the FBI investigations Trump labeled as treason: also not treason. Then came the 6 January attack on the Capitol by hundreds of Trump supporters. That was treason according to the founding fathers, Larson wrote in an op-ed the next day.

But in the three months since 6 January, however, there has been little public discussion of “treason” as the framework for understanding what happened, Larson said. “Everything was ‘Treason, treason, treason,’ when it wasn’t, and now you have an event that is closer to the original 18th-century definition of treason than anything that’s happened, and it’s almost silent. Nobody is using the term at all,” he said.

Federal prosecutors have brought cases against more than 300 people allegedly involved in the Capitol insurrection. So far, many of the rioters have been charged with lower-level offenses, like “disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building”. A few members of extremist groups, including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, are facing more serious conspiracy charges.

There has been some public discussion of whether some rioters should face “sedition” charges, including an early comment by then president-elect Joe Biden that the rioting at the Capitol was an “unprecedented assault” on democracy that “borders on sedition”.

A federal prosecutor who had been working on the Capitol cases told 60 Minutes in late March that he personally believed “the facts do support” sedition charges against some suspects. Michael Sherwin, the prosecutor, was publicly criticized by a federal judge for the media appearance, and is now the subject of an internal review over whether he spoke out inappropriately.

Treason is defined in the US constitution as “levying war” against the United States, or “adhering” to the enemies of the United States and “giving them aid and comfort”. The framers had in mind “men gathering with guns, forming an army, and marching on the seat of government”, Larson said.

Sedition, in contrast, is “a broader term for disloyal behavior” against the government, Larson said.

There are two main types of sedition in US law: one is sedition associated with speech, or “seditious libel”, a charge which has been repeatedly used in the US to target anti-war and leftist activists, particularly during wartime, according to Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama school of law. The other is “seditious conspiracy”, defined under federal law as taking action either to “overthrow” the US government, to use force “to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States” or “to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States”.

While treason is a crime still punishable by death in the United States, the maximum penalty for seditious conspiracy is 20 years.

‘If that’s not seditious conspiracy, I don’t know what is’

In his book On Treason: A Citizen’s Guide to the Law, Larson argued that Americans were unlikely to mount an internal rebellion against the United States in modern times. Then the Capitol attack proved him wrong.

What was distinctive about the Capitol riot, he said, was the use of force, which is necessary for something to count as “levying war” against the United States.

He compared the insurrection to the anti-tax Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, which was forcefully put down by George Washington, and resulted in multiple indictments for treason.

“If you asked a lawyer in 1790 if [6 January] was an act of treason or levying war against the United States, they would have almost certainly said yes,” Larson said.

Yet Larson said he did not expect prosecutors would file treason charges in the 6 January cases, because the charge would probably add too many legal complications. A legal precedent from 1851 set a higher bar for the definition of treason, he wrote, defining it only as an attempt to overthrow the government itself, not simply the obstruction of one particular law.

The definition of “seditious conspiracy”, in contrast, seems like a much easier match, Larson and Carroll agreed, particularly because it includes conspiracies “to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law”, which the Capitol invaders appear to have accomplished by forcing lawmakers to hide and delaying the certification of the 2020 election results.

“Seditious conspiracy captures the flavor of January 6,” said Steve Vladeck, a federal courts expert at the University of Texas school of law. “You had a whole lot of people – who may not have had exactly the same motive, or may not have committed the exact same acts – who were in a very large degree involved in a common plan, the goal of which was to somehow, in some way, keep President Trump in office.”

“If that’s not seditious conspiracy, I don’t know what is.”

Seditious conspiracy charges have been rare in US history

It remains unlikely that the majority of the rioters will face seditious conspiracy charges, experts said.

The crime of “seditious conspiracy” requires proof, not just of the action, but of agreement, Carroll said. “The global chatter among US attorneys is that there has been a lot of work to trace electronic communications individuals engaged in to figure out who was talking to who,” she added.

“To the extent that there are charges for seditious conspiracy, it would be against particular little cells of people,” Larson said. “It would be impossible to show that all of those people [at the Capitol] had some type of prior agreement with each other.”

Sherwin, the federal prosecutor, told 60 Minutes in late March that there were “over 400 criminal cases” in total, but that only 10% of cases were “the more complex conspiracy cases” involving militia groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who “did have a plan”.

Seditious conspiracy charges have been rare in US history. That’s largely because seditious conspiracy itself “doesn’t happen that much”, Larson said.

In 1995, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and several followers were convicted of seditious conspiracy in a case related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Oscar LĂłpez Rivera, the leader of a Puerto Rican independence group, served 35 years in prison for seditious conspiracy before Barack Obama commuted his sentence in 2017.

Some previous attempts by federal prosectors to convict far-right extremists for seditious conspiracy have failed.

In 2012, a Michigan judge dismissed sedition charges against the five members of the Hutaree militia, a Christian militia group, ruling that the government’s case had relied too much on “circumstantial evidence”. Members of the group pleaded guilty to lesser weapons charges and were sentenced to time served.

In 1988, an all-white jury acquitted 13 white supremacists of sedition charges in a high-profile trial in Fort Smith, Arkansas.

More recently, Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, called last summer for prosecutors to file seditious conspiracy charges against demonstrators against police violence in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by police. Barr was particularly focused on protesters in Portland, where there had been property damage to a federal building, Carroll said.

This was “entirely inconsistent with how previous protest movements” had been treated, Carroll said, and prompted concern and outrage from legal experts.

The US government, Carroll said, “has not been great about being consistent about how it treats different types of dissenters”.

“Dissenters calling for change in social conditions or racial conditions or class conditions tend to be much more heavily prosecuted than folks who do things like engage in voter intimidation or engage in acts of white-based maintenance of power.”

Sedition laws in the early 20th century, including the Sedition Act of 1918, was “not only focused on World War I”, but “really focused on shutting down socialists and communists, who the government thought were going to be a threat to democracy”, said Roy Gutterman, the director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University.

The supreme court at the time upheld convictions of “small groups of dissidents” who were “distributing fliers speaking out against the US government”, Gutterman said. That included socialists passing out flyers advocating that Americans peacefully resist the draft, which the supreme court at the time ruled was not protected as free speech.

When a law originally designed to crack down on leftist and labor organizers were used to prosecute a Ku Klux Klan leader after a cross burning in the 1960s, the supreme court set a new standard, concluding that the law violated the Klan leader’s free speech rights.

3 Likes

Two articles:

The GOP can’t be saved. Center-right voters need to become Biden Republicans.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of only 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump this year, recently told the Atlantic why he remains committed to the party: “I’m a Republican because I’ve been a Republican far longer than Donald Trump has. He’s a Republican usurper.… I’m not going to let him take the party. So I will fight. I will fight like hell.”

I admire Kinzinger’s fighting spirit. I once shared it. I recall saying something very similar in 2016 when Trump was marching through the Republican primaries: It’s my party, and I won’t leave it. My hope was that a decisive win for Hillary Clinton would bring the GOP to its senses. That obviously did not happen, so the day after the 2016 election, I re-registered as an independent after a lifetime as a Republican.

It is a decision I have not for a moment regretted, because the GOP has become even more of a horror show than I anticipated. As former House speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) notes in a new memoir, the “crazies” have taken over. There are vanishingly few John McCain-style Republicans left; Kinzinger (a lieutenant colonel in the Air National Guard) is one of the few. The party’s center of gravity has shifted to kooks such as Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (who blamed Jewish space lasers for wildfires) and low-rent hucksters such as Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (who reportedly shared nude photos of his sexual conquests with his colleagues and is under investigation for possible sex trafficking).

Most Republicans don’t care that Trump locked up children, cozied up to white supremacists, tear-gassed peaceful protesters, benefited from Russian help in both of his campaigns, egregiously mishandled the pandemic, incited a violent attack on the Capitol and even faced fraud complaints from his own donors. A new Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that 81 percent of Republicans have a favorable impression of Trump. Wait. It gets worse: 60 percent say the 2020 election was stolen from him, only 28 percent say he is even partly to blame for the Capitol insurrection, and 55 percent say that the Capitol attack “was led by violent left-wing protestors trying to make Trump look bad.”

This is a portrait of a party that can’t be saved — at least in the foreseeable future. The GOP remains a cult of personality for the worst president in U.S. history. It has become a bastion of irrationality, conspiracy mongering, racism, nativism and anti-scientific prejudices.

So what should a sane, center-right voter — someone who might have voted for the GOP in the past — do under those circumstances?

There has been talk of forming a third party, but it’s not likely to succeed in our winner-take-all political system. Smaller parties flourish only in countries with proportional representation. There hasn’t been a successful third party in the United States since the 1850s, when the GOP arose out of the wreckage of the Whig Party. We can and should undermine the political duopoly with reforms such as multi-member congressional districts, ranked-choice voting and nonpartisan primaries. Such steps, which are being pushed by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), would make moderate candidates and even third-party candidates more viable.

But we won’t transform our political system anytime soon. In the meantime, centrists have a binary choice: Support either an increasingly extremist and obstructionist Republican Party or a Democratic Party that, under President Biden, is working to solve our most pressing problems.

Biden has turbocharged vaccinations with better management: The seven-day average of new vaccination doses has gone from 892,399 on Inauguration Day to almost 3 million today. He has boosted the economic recovery with a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill; the unemployment rate is down to 6 percent. Now he is pushing a $2 trillion plan to rebuild our dilapidated infrastructure — something that Trump only talked about doing.

It’s possible to oppose Biden’s plans on fiscal conservative grounds, but Republicans have no standing left on that issue after supporting Trump’s $1.9 trillion tax cut during an economic expansion. Likewise, Republicans have lost all credibility on free trade by supporting Trump’s trade wars and on foreign policy by backing Trump’s neo-isolationism. What do they have left? Scare-mongering rhetoric (every Democratic initiative is a sign of “socialism”) and culture wars (Dr. Seuss, Major League Baseball) to distract their base.

But while Biden hasn’t gotten any GOP votes in Congress for his agenda yet, he has won broad approval from the country at large. At 53.1 percent, Biden’s approval rating is higher than Trump’s ever was. Polls show that 73 percent approve of Biden’s handling of the coronavirus and 60 percent of his handling of the economy. There is also broad support for his infrastructure plan, with 64 percent backing tax hikes on corporations to pay for it.

Biden is governing from the “new center,” while Republicans are increasingly catering to the far right with shrill, divisive rhetoric and antidemocratic actions such as bills to restrict voting. Under those circumstances, those of us on the center-right can’t afford a third-party flirtation. We need to become Biden Republicans.

New GOP Panic as ‘Biden Republicans’ Upend Trump’s Alliance

President Biden is boasting about Mitch McConnell’s voters supporting his policies. In this special report, MSNBC’s Ari Melber examines how republican voters are supporting Pres. Biden’s agenda from the popular Covid Relief Bill to a $2 trillion infrastructure and jobs package. Melber reports on how democrats are using the ‘Reagan Playbook’ – working on a wave of ‘Biden Republicans’ similar to the ‘Reagan Democrats.’

3 Likes

We see all the undercurrents going on with the Republican party and their desire to call out the legitimately won election for Biden - The Big Lie. The push is for them to continue with keeping this false idea out there, igniting their base and poisoning the democracy.

It is a terrifying prospect to have this party create a blind trust to 1/3 or the population to continue to believe in their lies. 2022 is not that far off for lots more changes in the House/Senate and swinging it back to the R’s.

:flushed:

Thomas L. Friedman

Trump’s Big Lie Devoured the G.O.P. and Now Eyes Our Democracy

May 4, 2021

By Thomas L. Friedman

Opinion Columnist

President Biden’s early success in getting Americans vaccinated, pushing out stimulus checks and generally calming the surface of American life has been a blessing for the country. But it’s also lulled many into thinking that Donald Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen, which propelled the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, would surely fade away and everything would return to normal. It hasn’t.

We are not OK. America’s democracy is still in real danger. In fact, we are closer to a political civil war — more than at any other time in our modern history. Today’s seeming political calm is actually resting on a false bottom that we’re at risk of crashing through at any moment.

Because, instead of Trump’s Big Lie fading away, just the opposite is happening — first slowly and now quickly.

Under Trump’s command and control from Mar-a-Largo, and with the complicity of most of his party’s leaders, that Big Lie — that the greatest election in our history, when more Republicans and Democrats voted than ever before, in the midst of a pandemic , must have been rigged because Trump lost — has metastasized. It’s being embraced by a solid majority of elected Republicans and ordinary party members — local, state and national.

“Denying the legitimacy of our last election is becoming a prerequisite for being elected as a Republican in 2022,” observed Gautam Mukunda, host of Nasdaq’s “World Reimagined” podcast and author of the book “Indispensable: When Leaders Really Mattered.”

“This is creating a filter that over time will block out anyone willing to tell the truth about the election.” It will leave us with “a Republican Party where you cannot rise without declaring that the sun sets in the East, a Republican Party where being willing to help steal an election is literally a job requirement.”

This is not an exaggeration. Here is what Representative Anthony Gonzalez, one of the few Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, told The Hill about the campaign within the party to oust Representative Liz Cheney from her House G.O.P. leadership position, because of her refusal to go along with the Big Lie:

“If a prerequisite for leading our conference is continuing to lie to our voters, then Liz is not the best fit. Liz isn’t going to lie to people. … She’s going to stand on principle.”

Think about that for a second. To be a leader in today’s G.O.P. you either have to play dumb or be dumb on the central issue facing our Republic: the integrity of our election. You have to accept everything that Trump has said about the election — without a shred of evidence — and ignore everything his own attorney general, F.B.I. director and election security director said — based on the evidence — that there was no substantive fraud.

What kind of deformed party will such a dynamic produce? A party so willing to be marinated in such a baldfaced lie will lie about anything, including who wins the next election and every one after that.

There is simply nothing more dangerous for a two-party democracy than to have one party declare that no election where it loses is legitimate, and, therefore, if it loses it will just lie about the results and change the rules.

3 Likes

Rep Liz Cheney fights back…R-WY.

Liz Cheney, a Republican, represents Wyoming’s at-large congressional district in the U.S. House.

In public statements again this week, former president Donald Trump has repeated his claims that the 2020 election was a fraud and was stolen. His message: I am still the rightful president, and President Biden is illegitimate. Trump repeats these words now with full knowledge that exactly this type of language provoked violence on Jan. 6. And, as the Justice Department and multiple federal judges have suggested, there is good reason to believe that Trump’s language can provoke violence again . Trump is seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work — confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law. No other American president has ever done this.

The Republican Party is at a turning point, and Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution. In the immediate wake of the violence of Jan. 6, almost all of us knew the gravity and the cause of what had just happened — we had witnessed it firsthand.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) left no doubt in his public remarks. On the floor of the House on Jan. 13, McCarthy said: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” Now, McCarthy has changed his story.

I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative values is reverence for the rule of law. Each of us swears an oath before God to uphold our Constitution. The electoral college has spoken. More than 60 state and federal courts, including multiple Trump-appointed judges, have rejected the former president’s arguments, and refused to overturn election results. That is the rule of law; that is our constitutional system for resolving claims of election fraud.

The question before us now is whether we will join Trump’s crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have. I have worked overseas in nations where changes in leadership come only with violence, where democracy takes hold only until the next violent upheaval. America is exceptional because our constitutional system guards against that. At the heart of our republic is a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power among political rivals in accordance with law. President Ronald Reagan described this as our American “miracle.”

While embracing or ignoring Trump’s statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country. Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system.

For Republicans, the path forward is clear.

First, support the ongoing Justice Department criminal investigations of the Jan. 6 attack. Those investigations must be comprehensive and objective; neither the White House nor any member of Congress should interfere.

Second, we must support a parallel bipartisan review by a commission with subpoena power to seek and find facts; it will describe for all Americans what happened. This is critical to defeat the misinformation and nonsense circulating in the press and on social media. No currently serving member of Congress — with an eye to the upcoming election cycle — should participate. We should appoint former officials, members of the judiciary and other prominent Americans who can be objective , just as we did after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The commission should be focused on the Jan. 6 attacks. The Black Lives Matter and antifa violence of last summer was illegal and reprehensible, but it is a different problem with a different solution.

Finally, we Republicans need to stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality. In our hearts, we are devoted to the American miracle. We believe in the rule of law, in limited government, in a strong national defense, and in prosperity and opportunity brought by low taxes and fiscally conservative policies.

There is much at stake now, including the ridiculous wokeness of our political rivals, the irrational policies at the border and runaway spending that threatens a return to the catastrophic inflation of the 1970s. Reagan formed a broad coalition from across the political spectrum to return America to sanity, and we need to do the same now. We know how. But this will not happen if Republicans choose to abandon the rule of law and join Trump’s crusade to undermine the foundation of our democracy and reverse the legal outcome of the last election.

History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process. I am committed to doing that, no matter what the short-term political consequences might be.

3 Likes

The long tail of Trump’s Big Lie: 9 ways it continues to affect American politics

Donald Trump isn’t moving on. Neither is his party.

More than six months after his defeat, Trump continues to declare that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him. And this lie, sometimes called “the Big Lie,” continues to have a major impact on American politics.

The lie would matter, as a matter of principle, even if it wasn’t having much of a practical effect. But it matters even more when it is fueling a national Republican push to make elections laws more restrictive, playing a significant role in who wins GOP nominations and leadership positions, motivating a partisan push to “audit” the 2020 results, causing another partisan fight in Congress, aiding the QAnon conspiracy movement, and affecting public perceptions of the current president.

Here are nine ways the Big Lie continues to reverberate.

Fuel for restrictive voting laws

Perhaps the most consequential result of Trump’s lies about what happened in 2020 is the slew of 2021 efforts by Republican state legislators to make it more difficult to vote.

Among other things, Republican proposals would reduce the availability of ballot drop boxes, shorten early voting periods and absentee voting periods, make it harder for voters to obtain mail-in ballots, increase voter identification requirements, prohibit 24-hour voting and drive-through voting, eliminate Election Day voter registration, limit who is allowed to return someone else’s absentee ballot and more aggressively purge voter rolls.

In many cases, it’s not clear whether Republican legislators actually believe the 2020 election was fraudulent or whether they are cynically using voters’ own misapprehensions about the election as political cover. The distinction is irrelevant in practice, since the lies are turning into suppressive bills no matter what the real reason is.

A career problem for Republicans who stood for truth

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who stood firm against election lies, now faces a primary challenger who has Trump’s powerful endorsement: Congressman Jody Hice, who began his campaign by uttering election lies (and last week made a misleading claim about the Capitol riot on January 6). And Raffensperger has already had some of his power stripped by the Republican governor and state legislature.

Another Georgia Republican who stood up for facts about what happened in 2020, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, announced this week that he would not seek reelection. Like Raffensperger, Duncan has made Republican enemies by declining to humor Trump’s nonsense.

It isn’t just Georgia officials on the hot seat for speaking truth. Nevada’s Republican Party Central Committee voted in April to censure Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske for refusing to investigate (baseless allegations of) election fraud and being too “dismissive” of (baseless) concerns about “election integrity.”

A rationale for a crackdown on elections officials

Republicans have not only targeted particular state elections chiefs. Lies about how particular counties conducted the 2020 election have provided a rationale for a broad Republican effort to restrict local elections officials.

A new Georgia law gives a state board the power to appoint someone to temporarily take over local elections boards. A new Florida law says a county elections chief can be penalized up to $25,000 if any drop box is made available in a way that violates the law’s requirements. An Iowa law signed in March allows local elections officials to be fined up to $10,000 for a “technical infraction” and charged with a felony for failing to implement guidance from the Iowa secretary of state.

And Republicans around the country have or are trying to forbid local officials, among others, from sending out absentee ballot applications to voters who have not specifically requested them.

An impetus for a change in House Republican leadership

Last week, Republicans removed Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney from the third-ranking spot in the party’s House leadership because of her vocal criticism of election lies – and replaced her with New York Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has repeatedly promoted those lies and who tried to get the election overturned.

A factor in open primary races

Josh Mandel, the former Ohio treasurer who is now running in the Republican primary for the US Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Rob Portman, has turned the Big Lie into an applause line in his speeches – proclaiming that he, unlike his “establishment” rivals, is willing to flatly declare that the election was stolen from Trump.

In Virginia, the just-concluded Republican gubernatorial primary featured a candidate, state Sen. Amanda Chase, who also emphasized her baseless position that the election was stolen.

Chase finished third in a seven-candidate field. But she wasn’t really alone: the winner, businessman Glenn Youngkin, made “election integrity” one of his campaign issues and declined for weeks to say that Biden had been legitimately elected, changing his tune only after he secured the Republican nomination last week.

The basis for an Arizona “audit” – and pushes for other audits

The Big Lie underpinned the decision of Arizona’s Republican-controlled state Senate to commission a so-called “audit” of the 2020 election in the state’s most populous county, Maricopa, after the county had already conducted an audit that found no problems.

The state Senate hired an obscure, inexperienced firm that is run by someone who has promoted election lies; the firm’s Maricopa processes have been widely criticized by actual elections experts. But Republicans in other states, from Georgia to Michigan and California, are now pushing for similar “audits.”

Another fight in Congress

The Big Lie led to the storming of the Capitol on January 6. Now, instead of working together on any number of other issues, Congress is spending time fighting over whether to create an independent commission to investigate what happened.

Of course, the two sides aren’t equivalent here: It is Republicans in particular who have turned what could be a moment of quick and easy bipartisan unity into yet another partisan scrap.

Ammunition for conspiracy theorists

As CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan has reported, the Arizona “audit” that is based on the Big Lie has become a fixation in QAnon conspiracy circles – a basis, albeit a ludicrous basis, to continue to believe that a series of states will somehow overturn President Joe Biden’s already-certified victories and that Trump will soon be returned to office.

Granted, QAnon adherents always manage to find some nonsensical reason or another to justify their nonsensical beliefs. But there’s no doubt that the continued prevalence of election lies has given the movement some ammunition.

An (unknown) effect on the public

Polling evidence suggests that there is a widespread perception among Republican voters that Biden was not legitimately elected. For example, a CNN poll in late April found that 70% of Republican respondents said they did not think Biden legitimately won enough votes to be president.

It’s impossible to say with certainty how this false belief is affecting these voters’ broader perceptions of Biden’s presidency. But it seems highly likely that it contributes to the polarization of the public, limiting the President’s capacity for earning the support of people who voted for Trump – and even limiting average Americans’ ability to have productive political conversations with each other.

4 Likes

The rising cost of being in the National Guard: Reservists and guardsmen are twice as likely to be hungry as other American groups

Civil unrest and pandemic deployments have led to extreme food insecurity among National Guard and Reserves

National Guard and reserve soldiers are having trouble feeding their families due to a year of record deployments.

Hunger among Guard members and reservists is more than double the national rate, according to U.S. Census Bureau data from mid-April through early June.

They report more food insecurity than nearly any other group, regardless of household income, education, age or race. Nearly one in five Guard members report sometimes or often not having enough to eat. And a third of those with a spouse serving in the National Guard or reserves report not having enough to eat. The numbers are even more troubling for National Guard and reserve families with children.

In an ordinary year, when they’re not activated or deployed, most reservists and Guard members spend one weekend a month running drills and two weeks a year, often during the summer, training. This schedule allows most of them to work civilian jobs or get an education as well. It’s a similar work schedule for reservists, who work for different branches of the military.

Over the pandemic the National Guard has faced longer deployments and periods of activation. They’ve overseen coronavirus testing, distributed food at the nation’s food banks, quelled civil unrest and more recently helped to administer vaccines, said John Goheen, spokesman for the National Guard Association of the United States, an advocacy group. This is in addition to responding to more natural disasters such as wildfires and flood.

The National Guard has declared 2020 “the Year of the Guard.” Last year, the National Guard was activated for 11 million “man days,” the highest number since World War II, Goheen said. By comparison, in 2019 there were only 2 million man days.

Wayne Hall, a spokesman for the National Guard, said he is skeptical about the food insecurity census data. He said that between the Army and Air National Guard and the different branches of the reserves, there are 1.2 million service members but the census data only accounts for under 400,000 of them. He said he has not encountered service members who have complained of household hunger.

“These figures are an underrepresentation of the full force,” Hall said. “And almost a quarter surveyed didn’t report.”

Yet several military advocacy groups said they are seeing rising problems with food insecurity, and suggest such problems might be invisible to military leadership. Jennifer Davis, lobbyist for the National Military Family Association, said hungry Guard members and reservists are motivated to seem “fine" and are hesitant to seek help or reveal financial hardship.

“A service member has to consider promotability and clearances: You can’t afford to struggle too badly; you have to keep your bills paid,” she said. “You can lose your clearance if your finances are in a shambles, we’re talking even a bounced check. If it comes between paying the bills and keeping food on the table, there’s pressure to pay those bills. And there are concerns about sharing with your leadership that you’re struggling to take care of your family, because you never want that to come back and haunt you when you’re up for promotion.”

One National Guard member in Georgia said he lost his job as a schoolteacher last spring, as the pandemic began, because of his stepped-up Guard schedule. He asked to speak anonymously, because his termination is under investigation.

“Why are we activating more National Guard troops than at the height of the war in Afghanistan?” the guard member said. “You’re taking these people away from their families, and for what reason? There is no reason. This is becoming a problem for civilian employers.”

After nearly five months on the Hill, National Guard winds down Capitol deployment

Another National Guard officer who has spent seven months in uniform since the start of the pandemic, who also asked not to be identified for fear of losing his job, said a full 25 percent of the National Guard was on active duty last June, dealing with the pandemic and civil unrest.

“The shadow issue that affects Guard troops right now is the ludicrous tempo at which they’ve been activated over the past year. It’s hard to find Guard members who have not been told to report in the past year, everyone has been pulled away from their regular lives,” he said.

If called up to active duty, low-ranking Guard members and reservists make a base pay of around $3,000 per month. When not on active duty, Guard members get around $200 for a weekend of drills, which is why most have other civilian jobs.

The spike in days worked takes Guard members and reservists away from their jobs, with many soldiers not drawing that income if they’re away on military duty.

Even in normal times, military spouses have higher levels of unemployment or underemployment than civilian populations, citing factors like job scarcity near military bases and frequent moves. Moving around can leave military families far from their extended families and increase a nonmilitary partner’s child care burden. Before the pandemic, 22 percent of military spouses reported being unemployed, according to a large Pentagon survey.

Advocacy groups, including the National Military Family Association and Blue Star Families, said they are seeing larger numbers of unemployment among military spouses due to the pandemic.

In some cases military families don’t take advantage of food assistance programs. Even before the pandemic, perceived stigma deterred military families who qualified for free or reduced-price school meals from taking advantage of such programs, said Josh Protas, vice president of public policy for MAZON, a Jewish hunger organization that works with military families. The past year exacerbated the problem, he said, with many low-income military families not availing themselves of, or even aware of, Pandemic EBT, a debit card system that replaced school meals when schools went remote.

Another problem involves housing costs, said Matt Pelak, a Guard member in New York City. Usually, a basic allowance for housing doesn’t kick in until a deployment is more than 30 days. Many of these deployments are fewer than 30 days, so the military doesn’t have to pay the housing allowance, putting an additional financial burden on low-wage soldiers. That means soldiers are paying for their rent or mortgage back home, plus wherever they are living while deployed.

Medical insurance often works the same way, adding to the financial squeeze, Goheen said. When guard members are mobilized or deployed at home, the only time they have medical coverage is if their order is 31 days or longer, he said. Guard members and reservists would then be eligible for the same medical coverage as active-duty troops. But those service members activated for less than a month have fewer options, and must obtain their own health care coverage.

Many Guard members and reservists’ military pay is not commensurate with their civilian salary, according to Protas, and many civilian jobs are not required to pay Guard members their wages during absences or even to keep the civilian jobs open for their return.

For the teacher in Georgia, the protracted nature of deployments in 2020 took a toll on his standing at work. He said the current level of financial instability and food insecurity had “everything to do with civilian employers and underpaid Guard members.”

He said things seemed to be going well at his school, but something changed. He said the administration began asking him to persuade his unit to change his drill dates and bombarding him with “questions that weren’t appropriate.” His teaching contract was not renewed.

The irony, according to Goheen, is that many of the covid missions for the Guard were working at American food banks, helping to feed the needy. And while the nation is increasingly vaccinated and signs point to economic recovery, Guard members and reservists continue to struggle.

Some of Guard members and reservists’ financial precariousness is because employers are tired of giving them the time off. All those absences put extra pressure on other workers and bosses, said the Guard officer who spent seven months in uniform.

“Back in the spring of 2020, employers were saying, ‘Yes, go, fight the pandemic. But as time goes on they’re less enthusiastic,” he said. “The cracks take time to show with these kinds of things.”

3 Likes

Trump wasn’t just an abnormal figure — psychiatrists say his rhetoric caused real trauma

Donald Trump was an unprecedented president in many ways. He was the first president to lack any previous political or military experience, one of only five presidents to win an election without the popular vote (and the first to also later get impeached) and the only president to reject an election loss outright in order to promote a Nazi-esque Big Lie.

For millions of Americans, the end of Trump’s presidency came as a relief — but for some, the break from normalcy has lasted far longer than they anticipated. Several psychiatrists who spoke with Salon used the word “trauma” to describe the lingering impact the last four years have had on many Americans, particularly those from marginalized communities most at risk from Trump’s rhetoric.

Dr. David Reiss, a psychiatrist who contributed to the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” told Salon that although many of Trump’s policies could be characterized as traumatizing, there were two areas which “crossed partisan boundaries.”

First, he pointed to Trump’s intentionally divisive rhetoric (policy-wise he was not that different from other recent Republican presidents) and noted that it has traumatized his supporters as well as his opponents.

“This is different from ‘normal’ pre-Trump politics wherein using anger strategically is not uncommon, but is typically not a personal attack and at least on the surface, it is couched in ‘mature’ language and focused on policies or specific behaviors regarding policies rather than being personal attacks,” Reiss wrote via email. “Trump seems always willing to attack anyone who disagrees with him, or whom he does not see as sufficiently supportive of him. His attacks in very direct, personal, immature ways (name-calling/childish nicknames; stating overtly that opponents are horrible people, etc.), as well as Trump’s using occasions that are typically at least superficially non-partisan (holidays, tragedies, etc.) to almost always include an attack on some person or persons, is far outside of what is normal.”

These actions traumatize supporters by triggering their anger in emotionally damaging ways, and, more importantly, make his opponents targets for very real-life abuse from Trump’s supporters, Reiss said. His political opponents, meanwhile, have to endure an unusual amount of verbal abuse — even for contemporary politics.

Dr. Gail Saltz, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the NY Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, also noted Trump’s extreme and cruel rhetoric as abnormal in American politics.

“President Trump used deprecating, extreme, cruel language to discuss anyone or groups he did not agree with,” Saltz told Salon via email. “He often included an indictment of the person or group with verbally aggressive language, even suggesting at times for others who agreed with him to rise up and ‘defeat’ any who would oppose him. He ridiculed and shamed others around him and constantly threatened others with being treated aggressively should they fail to support him.”

Even worse, Trump’s actions “gave permission to many people to treat other people and groups the same way. As a result, it had a ripple effect, where targeted groups (due to immigration status, race, religion, sexuality, gender, socioeconomic status, etc.) were being treated badly through being shamed, threatened with violence, and threatened with loss (money, inclusion, a home to live in, shunning from their society, etc.).”

When Trump wasn’t abusing people with his juvenile insults, he was altering their sense of reality to meet his own political purposes. This occurred most infamously, of course, with his refusal to accept the science behind COVID-19 or the objective reality that he lost the 2020 election.

“Similarly, although with somewhat different content, Trump’s constant ‘redefining of reality’ to meet his needs of the moment, often with minimal connection with objective reality or in direct contradiction of facts, and not infrequently even internally inconsistent (Just last week: From ‘No one knows more about taxes than me’ to ‘No one really knows about taxes’) is traumatizing,” Reiss said. “Again, agree or disagree, these statements are at best discombobulating, if not overtly traumatizing (i.e., ‘gaslighting’). Even if a person supports Trump, the constant fluctuations of his definition of reality is disorganizing and anxiety-provoking — and then ties into triggering anger at others who do not support whichever point of view you adopt.”

Saltz had a similar observation, explaining that “when a leader makes statements that deny reality, enforce that only news they agree with is real news and all else is fake news can further the trauma for those people who are living with the difficult consequences of their reality. So to be in terrible struggle and then have the leader, the person in charge, say it is not your reality can only add to trauma.”

She compared Trump to other world leaders who have traumatized people — including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin and Spain’s Francisco Franco — arguing that “the very essence of trauma is believing that your life or future life has been put at real risk, that you experience living through an utterly frightening and dangerous time that is not typical for the human experience of feeling safe and having some security.”

She added, “This type of fearful loss of the ability to say ‘I am okay, I will be okay’ can generate ongoing psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, intrusive frightening thoughts, flashback reoccurrences of terrible moments, trouble concentrating, sleep disruption and avoidance of anything that reminds you of the traumatic time.”

Olivia James, a London-based therapist who specializes in trauma, recalled that roughly one-third of her practice reported unanticipated physical responses when Trump began smearing then-candidate Joe Biden on the campaign trail.

“Several people reported they found themselves breathing deeply from their bellies,” James wrote to Salon. “Their shoulders dropped. And they didn’t even realize they were holding four years of tension in their shoulders or diaphragm. Four others spontaneously started to weep. They found they were grieving the past four years.”

James elaborated on how Trump is so effective at hurting people.

“Trump is widely regarded as a malignant narcissist; twisting the truth, gaslighting and bullying,” James explained. “Trump uses DARVO - a blame-shifting strategy used by abusers including narcissists: 1. Deny 2. Attack 3. Reverse Victim & Offender. He used it against 20 women who accused him of sexual assault. He’s also used it to claim the Democrats were trying to steal the election he won by a landslide.”

James later added, “The fact that so many Republicans backed him even after he showed what he was capable of will also add to the trauma and anxiety. There’s also the real fear that he may come back, so the hyper-vigilance will continue.”

Yet she said people should not feel embarrassed or believe they are powerless at Trump’s hands.

“If you feel traumatised by Trump, this means your empathy and moral compass are still functioning,” James said. “Find your tribe so you don’t feel so isolated and powerless. We’ve got to hold onto our hope and our shared humanity. Focus on what you can do, individually and collectively. Even micro actions will help you feel like you have agency.”

3 Likes

An American Kingdom

A new and rapidly growing Christian movement is openly political, wants a nation under God’s authority, and is central to Donald Trump’s GOP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/07/11/mercy-culture-church/

FORT WORTH — The pastor was already pacing when he gave the first signal. Then he gave another, and another, until a giant video screen behind him was lit up with an enormous colored map of Fort Worth divided into four quadrants.

Greed , the map read over the west side. Competition , it said over the east side. Rebellion , it said over the north part of the city. Lust , it said over the south.

It was an hour and a half into the 11 a.m. service of a church that represents a rapidly growing kind of Christianity in the United States, one whose goal includes bringing under the authority of a biblical God every facet of life, from schools to city halls to Washington, where the pastor had traveled a month after the Jan. 6 insurrection and filmed himself in front of the U.S. Capitol saying quietly, “Father, we declare America is yours.”

Now he stood in front of the glowing map, a 38-year-old White man in skinny jeans telling a congregation of some 1,500 people what he said the Lord had told him: that Fort Worth was in thrall to four “high-ranking demonic forces.” That all of America was in the grip of “an anti-Christ spirit.” That the Lord had told him that 2021 was going to be the “Year of the Supernatural,” a time when believers would rise up and wage “spiritual warfare” to advance God’s Kingdom, which was one reason for the bright-red T-shirt he was wearing. It bore the name of a church elder who was running for mayor of Fort Worth. And when the pastor cued the band, the candidate, a Guatemalan American businessman, stood along with the rest of the congregation as spotlights flashed on faces that were young and old, rich and poor, White and various shades of Brown — a church that had grown so large since its founding in 2019 that there were now three services every Sunday totaling some 4,500 people, a growing Saturday service in Spanish and plans for expansion to other parts of the country.

“Say, ‘Cleanse me,’ ” the pastor continued as drums began pounding and the people repeated his words. “Say, ‘Speak, Lord, your servants are listening.’ ”


The church is called Mercy Culture, and it is part of a growing Christian movement that is nondenominational, openly political and has become an engine of former president Donald Trump’s Republican Party. It includes some of the largest congregations in the nation, housed in the husks of old Baptist churches, former big-box stores and sprawling multimillion-dollar buildings with private security to direct traffic on Sundays. Its most successful leaders are considered apostles and prophets, including some with followings in the hundreds of thousands, publishing empires, TV shows, vast prayer networks, podcasts, spiritual academies, and branding in the form of T-shirts, bumper stickers and even flags. It is a world in which demons are real, miracles are real, and the ultimate mission is not just transforming individual lives but also turning civilization itself into their version of God’s Kingdom: one with two genders, no abortion, a free-market economy, Bible-based education, church-based social programs and laws such as the ones curtailing LGBTQ rights now moving through statehouses around the country.

This is the world of Trump’s spiritual adviser Paula White and many more lesser-known but influential religious leaders who prophesied that Trump would win the election and helped organize nationwide prayer rallies in the days before the Jan. 6 insurrection, speaking of an imminent “heavenly strike” and “a Christian populist uprising,” leading many who stormed the Capitol to believe they were taking back the country for God.

Even as mainline Protestant and evangelical denominations continue an overall decline in numbers in a changing America, nondenominational congregations have surged from being virtually nonexistent in the 1980s to accounting for roughly 1 in 10 Americans in 2020, according to long-term academic surveys of religious affiliation. Church leaders tend to attribute the growth to the power of an uncompromised Christianity. Experts seeking a more historical understanding point to a relatively recent development called the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR.

A California-based theologian coined the phrase in the 1990s to describe what he said he had seen as a missionary in Latin America — vast church growth, miracles, and modern-day prophets and apostles endowed with special powers to fight demonic forces. He and others promoted new church models using sociological principles to attract members. They also began advancing a set of beliefs called dominionism, which holds that God commands Christians to assert authority over the “seven mountains” of life — family, religion, education, economy, arts, media and government — after which time Jesus Christ will return and God will reign for eternity.

None of which is new, exactly. Strains of this thinking formed the basis of the Christian right in the 1970s and have fueled the GOP for decades.

What is new is the degree to which Trump elevated a fresh network of NAR-style leaders who in turn elevated him as God’s chosen president, a fusion that has secured the movement as a grass-roots force within the GOP just as the old Christian right is waning. Increasingly, this is the world that the term “evangelical voter” refers to — not white-haired Southern Baptists in wooden pews but the comparatively younger, more diverse, more extreme world of millions drawn to leaders who believe they are igniting a new Great Awakening in America, one whose epicenter is Texas.

That is where the pastor wearing the bright-red T-shirt, Landon Schott, had been on the third day of a 40-day fast when he said the Lord told him something he found especially interesting.

It was 2017, and he was walking the streets of downtown Fort Worth asking God to make him a “spiritual father” of the city when he heard God say no. What he needed was “spiritual authority,” he remembered God telling him, and the way to get that was to seek the blessing of a pastor named Robert Morris, an evangelical adviser to Trump, and the founder of one of the largest church networks in the nation, called Gateway, with nine branches and weekly attendance in the tens of thousands, including some of the wealthiest businessmen in Texas.

Morris blessed him. Not long after that, a bank blessed him with the funds to purchase an aging church called Calvary Cathedral International, a polygonal structure with a tall white steeple visible from Interstate 35. Soon, the old red carpet was being ripped up. The old wooden pews were being hauled out. The cross on the stage was removed, and in came a huge screen, black and white paint, speakers, lights and modern chandeliers as the new church called Mercy Culture was born.

“Mercy” for undeserved grace.

“Culture” for the world they wanted to create.

That world is most visible on Sundays, beginning at sunrise, when the worship team arrives to set up for services.

In the lobby, they place straw baskets filled with earplugs.

In the sanctuary, they put boxes of tissues at the end of each row of chairs.

On the stage one recent Sunday, the band was doing its usual run-through — two guitar players, a bass player, a keyboardist and two singers, one of whom was saying through her mic to the earpiece of the drummer: “When we start, I want you to wait to build it — then I want you to do those drum rolls as we’re building it.” He nodded, and as they went over song transitions, the rest of the worship team filtered in for the pre-service prayer.

The sound technician prayed over the board controlling stacks of D&B Audiotechnik professional speakers. The lighting technician asked the Lord to guide the 24 professional-grade spotlights with colors named “good green” and “good red.” Pacing up and down the aisles were the ushers, the parking attendants, the security guards, the greeters, the camera operators, the dancers, the intercessors, all of them praying, whispering, speaking in tongues, inviting into the room what they believed to be the Holy Spirit — not in any metaphorical sense, and not in some vague sense of oneness with an incomprehensible universe. Theirs was the spirit of a knowable Christian God, a tangible force they believed could be drawn in through the brown roof, through the cement walls, along the gray-carpeted hallways and in through the double doors of the sanctuary where they could literally breathe it into their bodies. Some people spoke of tasting it. Others said they felt it — a sensation of warm hands pressing, or of knowing that someone has entered the room even when your eyes are closed. Others claimed to see it — golden auras or gold dust or feathers of angels drifting down.

That was the intent of all this, and now the first 1,500 people of the day seeking out those feelings began arriving, pulling in past fluttering white flags stamped with a small black cross over a black “MC,” in through an entrance where the words “Fear Go” were painted in huge block letters above doors that had remained open for much of the pandemic. Inside, the church smelled like fresh coffee.

“Welcome to Mercy,” the greeters said to people who could tell stories of how what happened to them here had delivered them from drug addiction, alcoholism, psychological traumas, PTSD, depression, infidelities, or what the pastor told them was the “sexual confusion” of being gay, queer or transgender. They lingered awhile in a communal area, sipping coffee on modern leather couches, taking selfies in front of a wall with a pink neon “Mercy” sign, or browsing a narrow selection of books about demonic spirits. On a wall, a large clock counted down the final five minutes as they headed into the windowless sanctuary.

Inside, the lights were dim, and the walls were bare. No paintings of parables. No stained glass, crosses, or images of Jesus. Nothing but the stage and the enormous, glowing screen where another clock was spinning down the last seconds as cymbals began playing, and people began standing and lifting their arms because they knew what was about to happen. Cameras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were in position. The live stream was on standby. In the front row, the 85-year-old retired pastor of the church this used to be secured his earplugs.

What happened next was 40 nonstop minutes of swelling, blasting, drum-pounding music at times so loud that chairs and walls seemed to vibrate. The huge screen became a video of swirling clouds, then a black galaxy of spinning stars. The spotlights went from blue to amber to gold to white. A camera slid back and forth on a dolly. Fog spilled onto the stage. Modern dancers raced around waving shiny flags. One song melded into the next, rising and falling and rising again into extended, mantralike choruses about surrender while people in the congregation began kneeling and bowing.

A few rows back, the pastor stood with one hand raised and the other holding a coffee cup. And when the last song faded, a worship team member walked onstage to explain what was happening in case anyone was new.

“The Holy Spirit is in this room,” he said.

Now everyone sat down and watched the glowing screen. Another video began playing — this one futuristic, techno music over flash-cut images of a nuclear blast, a spinning planet, advancing soldiers, and when it was over, the pastor was standing on the stage to deliver his sermon, the essence of which was repeated in these kinds of churches all over the nation:

America is in the midst of a great battle between the forces of God and Satan, and the forces of Satan roughly resemble the liberal, progressive agenda. Beware of the “seductive, political, demonic, power-hungry spirit that uses witchcraft to control God’s people.” Beware of “freedom that is actually just rebellion against God.” Beware of confusion. Beware of “rogue leaders.” Beware of a world that “preaches toleration of things God does not tolerate,” and on it went for a full hour, a man with a microphone in a spotlight, pacing, sweating, whispering about evil forces until he cued the band and gave instructions for eternal salvation.

“Just say, ‘Holy Spirit, would you teach me how to choose to obey you,’ ” he said, asking people to close their eyes, or kneel, or bow, and as the drums began pounding again, the reaction was the same as it was every Sunday.

People closed their eyes. They knelt. They bowed. They believed, and as they did, people with cameras roamed the congregation capturing peak moments for videos that would be posted to the church’s website and social media accounts: a man with tattooed arms crying; a whole row of people on their knees bowing; a blond woman in a flower-print dress lying all the way down on the floor, forehead to carpet.

When it was over, people streamed outside, squinting into the bright Fort Worth morning as the next 1,500 people pulled in past the fluttering white flags.

“Welcome to Mercy,” the greeters said again.

By late afternoon Sunday, the parking lot was empty and the rest of the work of kingdom-building could begin.

One day, this meant a meeting of the Distinct Business Ministry, whose goal was “raising up an army of influential leaders” across Fort Worth.

Another day, it meant the church hosting a meeting of a group called the Freedom Shield Foundation, a dozen or so men huddled over laptops organizing what one participant described as clandestine “operations” around Fort Worth to rescue people they said were victims of sex trafficking. This was a core issue for the church. Members were raising money to build housing for alleged victims. There were always prayer nights for the cause, including one where church members laid hands on Fort Worth’s sheriff, who sat with a Bible in his lap and said that the problem was “the demonic battle of our lifetime” and told those gathered that “you are the warriors in that battle.”

Another day, it meant the steady stream of cars inching toward the church food bank, one team loading boxes into trunks and another fanning out along the idling line offering prayers.

A man in a dented green sedan requested one for his clogged arteries.

A man trying to feed a family of seven asked in Spanish, “Please, just bless my life.”

A stone-faced woman said her mother had died of covid, then her sister, and now a volunteer reached inside and touched her shoulder: “Jesus, wrap your arms around Jasmine,” she said, and when she moved on to others who tried to politely decline, the volunteer, a young woman, gave them personal messages she said she had received from the Lord.

“God wants to tell you that you’re so beautiful,” she said into one window.

“I feel God is saying that you’ve done a good job for your family,” she said into another.

“I feel God is saying, if anything, He is proud of you,” she said in Spanish to a woman gripping the steering wheel, her elderly mother in the passenger seat. “When God sees you, He is so pleased, He is so proud,” she continued as the woman stared straight ahead. “I feel you are carrying so much regret, maybe? And pain?” she persisted, and now the woman began nodding. “And I think God wants to release you from the past. Say, ‘Jesus, I give you my shame.’ Say, ‘Jesus, I give you my regret,’ ” the volunteer said, and the woman repeated the words. “ ‘You know I tried my best, Jesus. I receive your acceptance. I receive your love,’ ” the volunteer continued, and now the woman was crying, and the food was being loaded into the back seat, and a volunteer was taking her name, saying, “Welcome to the family.”

Another day, the Kingdom looked like rows of white tents where a woman in a white dress was playing a harp as more than a thousand mostly young women were arriving for something called Marked Women’s Night.

“I feel the Lord is going to be implanting something in us tonight,” a 27-year-old named Autumn said to her friend, their silver eye shadow glowing in the setting sun.

“Every time I come here the Lord always speaks to me,” her friend said.

“Yeah, that happens to me all the time, too,” said Autumn, who described how the Lord had told her to move from Ohio to Texas, and then to attend Gateway Church, and then to enroll in a Gateway-approved school called Lifestyle Christianity University, where she said the Lord sent a stranger to pay her tuition. Not long after that, the Lord sent her into an Aldi supermarket, where she met a woman who told her about Mercy Culture, which is how she ended up sitting here on the grass on a summer evening, believing that the Lord was preparing her to go to Montana to “prophesy over the land” in anticipation of a revival.

“I don’t understand it; I just know it’s God,” Autumn said.

“So many miracles,” said her friend, and soon the drums were pounding.

They joined the crowd heading inside for another thunderous concert followed by a sermon by the pastor’s wife, during which she referred to the women as “vessels” and described “the Kingdom of Heaven growing and taking authority over our nation.”

Another day — Election Day in Fort Worth — hundreds of church members gathered at a downtown event space to find out whether their very own church elder, Steve Penate, would become the next mayor, and the sense in the room was that of a miracle unfolding.

“Supernatural,” said Penate, a first-time candidate, looking at the crowd of volunteers who’d knocked on thousands of doors around the city.

A candidate for the 2022 governor’s race stopped by. A wealthy businessman who helped lead the Republican National Hispanic Assembly drove over from Dallas. The pastor came by to declare that “this is the beginning of a righteous movement.”

“We are not just going after the mayorship — we’re going after every seat,” he said as the first batch of votes came in showing Penate in sixth place out of 10 candidates, and then fifth place, and then fourth, which was where he stayed as the last votes came in and he huddled with his campaign team to pray.

“Jesus, you just put a dent in the kingdom of darkness,” his campaign adviser said. “We stand up to the darkness. We stand up to the establishment. God, this is only the beginning.”

Another day, 100 or so young people crowded into a church conference room singing, “God, I’ll go anywhere; God, I’ll do anything,” hands raised, eyes closed, kneeling, bowing, crying, hugging. At the front of the room, a man with blond hair and a beard was talking about love.

“Everyone says they have the definition for what love is, but the Bible says, ‘By this we know love,’ ” he said. “Jesus laid down his life for us, and we are to lay down our lives for others.”

He dimmed the lights and continued in this vein for another hour, the music playing, the young people rocking back and forth mouthing, “Jesus, Jesus,” trancelike, until the blond man said, “It’s about that time.”

He turned the lights back on and soon, he sent them out on missions into the four demonic quadrants of Fort Worth.

One group headed east into Competition, a swath of the city that included the mirrored skyscrapers of downtown and struggling neighborhoods such as one called Stop 6, where the young people had claimed two salvations in a park the day before.

Another team headed west toward the green lawns and sprawling mansions of Greed.

Another rolled south toward Lust, where it was normal these days to see rainbow flags on bungalow porches and cafe windows including the one where a barista named Ryan Winters was behind the counter, eyeing the door.

It wasn’t the evangelicals he was worried about but the young customers who came in and were sometimes vulnerable.

“Maybe someone is struggling with their identity,” Ryan said.

He was not struggling. He was 27, a lapsed Methodist who counted himself lucky that he had never heard the voice of a God that would deem him unholy for being who he was, the pansexual lead singer of a psychedelic punk band called Alice Void.

“I never had a time when I was uncomfortable or ashamed of myself,” he said. “We all take care of each other, right, Tom?”

“Oh, yeah,” said a man with long gray hair, Tom Brunen, a Baptist turned Buddhist artist who was 62 and had witnessed the transformation of the neighborhood from a dangerous, castoff district that was a refuge for people he called “misfits” into a place that represented what much of America was becoming: more accepting, more inclined to see churches in terms of the people they had forsaken.

“It’s all mythology and fear and guilt that keeps the plutocracy and the greed in line above everybody else,” Tom said. “That’s what the universe showed me. If you want to call it God, fine. The creative force, whatever. Jesus tried to teach people that it’s all one thing. He tried and got killed for it. Christianity killed Jesus. The end. That’s my testimony.”

That was what the kingdom-builders were up against, and in the late afternoon, Nick Davenport, 24, braced himself as he arrived at his demonic battlefield, Rebellion, a noisy, crowded tourist zone of bars, souvenir shops and cobblestone streets in the north part of the city. He began walking around, searching out faces.

“The sheep will know the shepherd’s voice,” he repeated to himself to calm his nerves.

“Hey, Jesus loves y’all,” he said tentatively to a blond woman walking by.

“He does, he does,” the woman said, and he pressed on.

“Is anything bothering you?” he said to a man holding a shopping bag.

“No, I’m good,” the man said, and Nick continued down the sidewalk.

It was hot, and he passed bars and restaurants and gusts of sour-smelling air. A cacophony of music drifted out of open doors. A jacked-up truck roared by.

He moved on through the crowds, scanning the faces of people sitting at some outdoor tables. He zeroed in on a man eating a burger, a red scar visible at the top of his chest.

“Do you talk to God?” Nick asked him.

“Every day — I died twice,” the man said, explaining he had survived a car accident.

“What happened when you died?” Nick asked.

“Didn’t see any white lights,” the man said. “Nothing.”

“Well, Jesus loves you,” Nick said, and kept walking until he felt God pulling him toward a young man in plaid shorts standing outside a bar. He seemed to be alone. He was drinking a beer, his eyes red.

“Hi, I’m Nick, and I wanted to know, how are you doing?”

“Kind of you to ask,” the man said. “My uncle killed himself yesterday.”

“Oh,” said Nick, pausing for a moment. “I’m sorry. You know, God is close to the brokenhearted. I know it doesn’t feel like it all the time.”

He began telling him his own story of a troubled home life and a childhood of bullying, and how he had been close to suicide himself when he was 18 years old, and how, on a whim, he went with a friend to a massive Christian youth conference in Nashville of the sort that is increasingly common these days. A worship band called Planet Shakers was playing, he said, and deep into one of their songs, he heard what he believed to be the voice of God for the first time.

“The singer said if you’re struggling, let it go, and I halfheartedly said, ‘Okay, God, I guess I give it to you,’ and all of the sudden I felt shaky. I fell to the ground. I felt like a hand on my chest. Like, ‘I have you.’ I heard God say, ‘I love you. I made you for a purpose.’ When I heard that, I bawled like a baby. That was when I knew what I was created for. For Jesus.”

The man with red eyes listened.

“Thanks for saying that,” he said, and Nick continued walking the sidewalks into the early evening, his confidence bolstered, feeling more certain than ever that he would soon be leaving his roofing job to do something else for the Lord, something big. He had been preparing, absorbing the lessons of a church that taught him his cause was righteous, and that in the great spiritual battle for America, the time was coming when he might be called upon to face the ultimate test.

“If I have any choice, I want to die like the disciples,” said Nick. “John the Baptist was beheaded. One or two were boiled alive. Peter, I believe he was crucified upside down. If it goes that way? I’m ready. If people want to stone me, shoot me, cut my fingers off — it doesn’t matter what you do to me. We will give anything for the gospel. We are open. We are ready.”

Ready for what, though, is the lingering question.

Those inside the movement have heard all the criticisms. That their churches are cults that prey on human frailties. That what their churches are preaching about LGTBQ people is a lie that is costing lives in the form of suicides. That the language of spiritual warfare, demonic forces, good and evil is creating exactly the sort of radical worldview that could turn politics into holy war. That the U.S. Constitution does not allow laws privileging a religion. That America does not exist to advance some Christian Kingdom of God or to usher in the second coming of Jesus.

To which Penate, the former mayoral candidate, said, “There’s a big misconception when it comes to separation of church and state. It never meant that Christians shouldn’t be involved in politics. It’s just loving the city. Being engaged. Our children are in public schools. Our cars are on public streets. The reality is that people who don’t align with the church have hijacked everything. If I ever get elected, my only allegiance will be to the Lord.”

Or as a member of Mercy Culture who campaigned for Penate said: “Can you imagine if every church took a more active role in society? If teachers were preachers? If church took a more active role in health? In business? If every church took ownership over their communities? There would be no homeless. No widows. No orphans. It would look like a society that has a value system. A Christian value system.”

That was the American Kingdom they were working to advance, and as another Sunday arrived, thousands of believers streamed past the fluttering white flags and into the sanctuary to bathe in the Holy Spirit for the righteous battles and glories to come.

The drums began pounding. The screen began spinning. The band began blasting, and when it was time, the pastor stood on the stage to introduce a topic he knew was controversial, and to deliver a very specific word. He leaned in.

“ Submission ,” he said.

“We’ve been taught obedience to man instead of obedience to God,” he continued.

“God makes an army out of people who will learn to submit themselves,” he continued.

“When you submit, God fights for you,” he concluded.

He cued the band. The drums began to pound again, and he told people to “breathe in the presence of God,” and they breathed. He told them to close their eyes, and they closed their eyes. He gave them words to repeat, and the people repeated them.

“I declare beautiful, supernatural submission,” they said.

2 Likes
3 Likes

Conservatives and capitalists are getting a divorce — and it’s going to get really, really ugly

On May 18, a pro-Trump think tank called the Claremont Institute hosted a conference at a Ritz Carlton not far from the Pentagon. It featured talks by a small but influential faction of American conservatives including former Trump national-security advisor Michael Anton, Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, and “Hillbilly Elegy” author and US Senate hopeful J.D. Vance. The event was billed as a response to a growing threat facing the American right, the latest and most urgent battle in the culture wars. It was titled simply “What to Do About Woke Capital.”

For several years now, the conservative movement has been fretting about its fraying alliance with corporate America, which has increasingly sided with progressive causes. In 2015 and 2016, boycotts by American Airlines, Eli Lilly, and Intel helped block anti-LGBT “religious-freedom laws” in Indiana, Arkansas, and Arizona. In 2017, pressure from PayPal, Deutsche Bank, and the NBA led North Carolina to repeal its anti-trans bathroom bill. In 2019, Disney, Netflix , and Warner Media moved business out of Georgia after the state enacted severe limits on abortion access. Last summer, dozens of major brands signaled support for Black Lives Matter. And in April, corporations from Coca-Cola to Major League Baseball denounced Georgia over its attempt to restrict voting and to hand control of the state’s elections to pro-Trump forces.

There is, of course, a simple explanation for these decisions: Corporations are seeking to align their public image with the values of their customers, shareholders, and employees. The positions considered “woke” by conservative ideologues — that police should kill fewer Black people, that abortion should be legal, that gay and trans people should not be subject to discrimination, that voting should be easier for everyone — are increasingly considered sensible by a majority of Americans.

“Corporations have awakened — to their duties,” said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at Yale School of Management who has convened a series of high-profile Zoom calls with top CEOs to strategize political interventions. “And it’s a good thing. Using the term ‘woke’ disparagingly is odd to me. It’s hard to understand how the opposite — being asleep on the job — is preferable.”

But for conservatives the shift in corporate loyalties represents a deep betrayal. For the past half century, big business has been a reliable ally and major funder of the right. Corporations didn’t stay out of politics — they actively sided with conservative Christians to promote an “awakening” in American politics, defending traditional notions of family, church, and neighborhood against the threat of communism, civil rights, and labor unions. To ensure the survival of “our American way of life and our enterprise system,” beer magnate and conservative megadonor Joseph Coors said in 1975, “the whole business community is going to have to get involved in political activities.”

Now, the conservative political class is reacting to so-called woke capital with the anguish of a lover scorned. Sen. Tom Cotton has denounced giant corporations using their “wealth and power to force liberal dogma on an unwilling people.” Sen. Josh Hawley bemoans an “alliance of leftists and woke capitalists” hoping to “regulate the innermost thoughts of every American, from school age to retirement.” And Sen. Ted Cruz ostentatiously swore off corporate PAC money in a Wall Street Journal missive entitled “Your Woke Money Is No Good Here.”

At the Woke Capital conference in May, the Claremont set went even further. The organization, which has a strong relationship with the Christian right, has positioned itself as the vanguard of a conservative realignment — shifting from market fundamentalism and toward a more militant right-wing nationalism. To Claremont thinkers, who have long worked to provide the intellectual scaffolding for Trump’s haphazard agenda, the enemy is not only the left, but the inherent decadence of America’s corporate elites.

“In just three generations,” said Arthur Milikh, executive director of Claremont’s new Center for the American Way of Life, “America’s most powerful corporations went from being more or less patriotic” to being “globalist” enablers of a “woke oligarchic state.”

As Milikh sees it, the right gave American corporations everything they wanted — tax breaks, free trade, open immigration — naively believing that capitalists would defend conservative values. But instead, he lamented, “much of the conservative establishment came to view the pinnacle of human life as private consumption and personal license, defining national health by GDP growth.” The result has been not only “spiritual enervation” and “the weakening of patriotic sentiment” but “the creation of a new oligarchic elite openly hostile to the nation.”

This new theme of the Trumpist right — that American corporations are, in essence, no longer American — represents a profound fissure in the conservative movement. The campaign against woke capital is driving a wedge between social conservatives and big business, fracturing the long-standing coalition that helped drive American politics to the right. As Tucker Carlson summed it up in the title of his keynote address at a 2019 conference on conservative nationalism, “Big Business Doesn’t Care About Your Family.” What distinguishes these new populists from the old guard of mainstream conservatism is their explicit aspiration to replace the current elite with a new one — a strategy intended to extend the MAGA right’s vision of minority rule long into the future.

From the outside, the long, enduring marriage of Christian traditionalism and capitalist free enterprise looked remarkably stable and mutually beneficial. From inside the conservative movement, though, it was always more a marriage of convenience than of philosophical affinity.

On one side of the alliance were traditionalists — communitarian Christians, agrarian nostalgics, neo-confederates — who sought a theologically informed moral order. They were ambivalent about capitalism, which views liberal individualism as the building block of political and social life. On the other side of the alliance were libertarians and free-market evangelists, who saw the state as the primary threat to human freedom.

What brought the two sides together, and gave birth to the modern conservative movement, was Communism. During the Cold War, William F. Buckley’s National Review brokered an uneasy peace between these competing tendencies. American liberals, the Review set reasoned, would never be sufficiently committed to Christian virtue or to free enterprise to resist the onslaught of Communism. The answer was “fusionism,” a political coalition of Christians and capitalists whose shared goal — defending Western civilization from its enemies within and without — was sufficient to solidify an alliance.


"Fusionism," the uneasy coalition of Christian traditionalism and capitalist free enterprise, was brokered by the National Review, under William F. Buckley. - Mark Harris for Insider

But for those at the Claremont conference, who see themselves as the inheritors of the traditionalist position, fusionism turned out to be a Faustian bargain. Wealthy elites got their way, basking in unrivaled wealth and personal liberty, while traditionalists got the short end of the stick: a disenchanted, amoral society where abortion is legal, conspicuous consumption has replaced spiritual fulfillment, and individual self-expression trumps virtue.

“Everyone on the right has basically been fed this Adam Smith fairy tale about economic and political history, in which all the good things should go together,” Julius Krein, the editor of the right-wing journal American Affairs, told me. “That’s fusionism: free markets plus moral virtue. It’s all a nice, big, happy combination.” Seeing big business “at least rhetorically” embrace progressive causes has been, Krein added, “a huge threat to that whole fairy tale. Even if it doesn’t provoke resistance per se, it provokes a lot of consternation and panic because you have your origin myth directly threatened.”

In a sense, the right’s hand-wringing over corporate progressivism is just sour grapes — the whining of a political movement hoisted by its own petard. After all, it was the conservative majority on the Supreme Court that maximized the power of corporate leaders to impose their values on the public. First, in Citizens United they allowed corporate money to dominate the electoral process. Then in Hobby Lobby they empowered private companies to engage in religious activism, observing that nothing in the law requires “for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else”

But in a perverse twist, conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to blame big business itself for the outbreak of wokeness. They’ve preached for so long that God favors capital, they have to find another explanation for why some of the world’s richest and most powerful corporations are abandoning them. So those at the Claremont conference blamed not the owners, but the managers they believe have usurped control of American capitalism.

This critique of managerialism draws on the theories of James Burnham, a founding editor of the National Review, who has enjoyed a renaissance in right-wing circles in recent years. His 1941 book “Managerial Revolution” argued that the corporate economy had become so complex that owners were forced to enlist technocratic managers to run their companies. Over time, Burnham thought, this new managerial elite would assume control of capital, reduce the owning class to mere shareholders, and proceed to “exploit the rest of society.”

For those at the Claremont event, Burnham’s concept of a middle strata between capital and labor serves as a way to exonerate wealthy owners, placing the blame for woke capital on a younger, inferior generation of mid-level bureaucrats. “What we’ve seen over the past several decades is the creation of this new bureaucratic and administrative layer within the corporate world, which is far less talented and far less productive,” Daniel McCarthy, editor of right-wing journal Modern Age, told attendees. “Woke young people coming to corporate America end up specializing in a kind of moral extortion over the people who are actually more talented and experienced than they are.”

For conservatives, the term “woke” — which originated among Black activists and artists back in Burnham’s day — remains closely associated with “identity politics.” In his opening remarks at the conference, Milikh defined the term as “the doctrine that so-called oppressors, identified by the color of their skin, must be humiliated, punished, and made to perpetually apologize for the sins of their fathers.” Such fantasies of racial vengeance, unmoored from the actual goals of today’s social movements, pervaded nearly every speech at the Claremont event.

What the woke want, said Azerrad, who teaches at Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian school, “is to redistribute power and honor to their preferred victim groups — you know the list — and to punish the oppressors: straight white men.” In a revealing aside, Azerrad recommended “a very amusing but also quite insightful” Twitter account called @WokeCapital, which documents examples of “corporate woke propaganda.” The account is also explicitly racist, referring to the NBA as "Apehoop League, " and captioning a picture of a mixed-race military couple with the words “Swirler Occupied Government.”


The MAGA crowd is particularly incensed that corporate brands have signaled support for Black Lives Matter. - Mark Harris for Insider

Presenters were particularly incensed by corporate brands that signaled support for the George Floyd protests last June. “No moment illustrated what woke capital meant for our country than the riots last summer tied to the Black Lives Matter movement,” J.D. Vance declared in his keynote address. Wearing a beard and evidently workshopping a bellicose stump speech for his Senate campaign, Vance accused Amazon’s Jeff Bezos of deliberately funding riots to undermine his competitors. “Who benefits most when small business on Main Street are destroyed?” he asked. Bezos, Vance said, is “getting rich from destroying America.”

The racist undercurrents of the Claremont conference are not incidental — they’re central to the emerging conservative realignment. Burnham, who was repeatedly cited at the event, believed that “Western civilization, thus Western man, is both different from and superior in quality to other civilizations and non-civilizations.”

The way to protect Western culture, Burnham argued, is not a democratic assault on the decadent oligarchy. Rather, the liberal managerial elite must be replaced with a new conservative elite, one that appreciates the threat posed by immigration and racial egalitarianism. Samuel Francis, a leading disciple of Burnham and a prescient theorist of Trumpism, argued in 1992 that “Middle American radicals” must “displace the incumbent elite, dismantle its apparatus of power, and itself constitute a new elite and re-constitute American society.” Only by doing so, he argued, could Middle America “preserve itself from destruction and extend its present moment in the political sun into an enduring epoch of civilization.”

Francis, not coincidentally, was a virulent racist, hailed by white supremacists as the “premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.” In 2000, after the Chamber of Commerce supported calls to take down the Confederate flag at the South Carolina capitol, Francis argued that big business was no friend of the right. “Capitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much an enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism,” he said. At base, today’s right populist war on so-called woke capital is a battle for power — by displaced elites — to shape the national consensus and define its most cherished symbols.

Nowhere is this clearer than in American Moment, another pro-Trump outgrowth of the Claremont Institute. Founded by a trio of 20-something conservatives — Saurabh Sharma, Nick Solheim, Jake Mercier — the organization describes itself as “dedicated to identifying, educating, and credentialing young Americans who will implement public policy that supports strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all.”

Translation: The group plans to recruit a new generation pro-Trump conservatives to replace the existing political and economic elite with … well, themselves. “If we don’t form our own elite,” the founders write, “one that is patriotic and acts as a champion for the great middle of our nation, the old regime will continue to win, and America will continue to lose.”

Trump failed, Sharma told me, in no small part because there weren’t enough “true believers” across the federal bureaucracy to implement his nationalist agenda. Sharma wants to change that. “We built up American Moment to create a pipeline of staff, essentially, that will go into congressional offices, future presidential administrations, public-policy organizations,” he said. “People that think like this, that are willing to devote serious parts of their lives to doing this sort of work.”

Where previous generations of conservatives dreamed of dismantling the entire administrative state, Sharma sees seizing and deploying political power as a necessity for making America great again. “People on the right are broadly shut out of culture,” he said. “And more and more so shut out of capital. So if we’re quickly approaching an America where the only thing the right can do is occasionally win elections, we better use whatever tools we have at hand to rebalance power in the other domains, and defend the interests of our voters.” To do otherwise, he suggested in the coded language long employed by far-right elites, would be to engage in “civilizational malfeasance.”

As for woke corporations, Sharma envisions a future Trump administration, staffed by ideologues “credentialized” by American Moment, that is willing to use a variety of carrots and sticks — from tax hikes to antitrust enforcement — to discipline corporate leaders who engage in virtue signaling. “I think there’s a lot of interesting stuff to be done there,” Sharma said. “But it would require the complete takeover of the bureaucracies that implement this sort of policy.”

As an example, Sharma pointed to the decision last year by former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to open a “formal investigation” into Princeton University, after the school said that “racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton.” Sharma imagines using antidiscrimination laws to “call the bluff” of businesses that admit to histories of racism. “Let’s use the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a hammer to bash every corporation that decides to virtue signal about this stuff, and see if they really mean it,” he said.

Sharma’s vision of a far-right administration using the levers of government to punish corporate elites hasn’t exactly taken over Washington yet. But throughout history, many a conservative revolution has begun with tiny groups of disgruntled ideologues gathered in hotel conference rooms. Just as the eggheads of Buckley’s era helped lay the groundwork for the Reagan revolution, today’s Claremont brain trust is working to set the stage for a regime that is far more nativist and nationalistic. Their plan, like so many Republican efforts these days, has little concern for democracy as such. They understand that if right-wing populism is to credibly embody the will of the people, a lot of people must be written out of the social contract.

“Re-establishing America’s ancient principles” would require “a sort of counter-revolution,” Glenn Ellmers, a senior fellow at Claremont, said in a recent essay. Seizing power, he goes on to explain, is “the only road forward.” It’s fine for conservatives to ignore or even sabotage the outcome of elections, he implies, because only Trump voters are “authentic Americans.”

And what of the majority who elected Joe Biden? What will become of them in the new, anti-woke America governed by a conservative elite?

“It is not obvious what we should call these citizen-aliens, these non-American Americans,” Ellmers concludes. “But they are something else.”

1 Like

The dark future of far-right Trumpist politics is coming into view

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/26/dark-future-far-right-trumpist-politics-is-coming-into-view/

The anti-immigrant politics of a certain swath of Republican politicians and Donald Trump loyalists have taken a particularly virulent and ugly turn of late — and if you look closely, you can catch a glimpse of the future direction that U.S. far-right Trumpist political aspirations might take.

This unsettling hint of what’s to come emerges, surprisingly, from the confluence of two big developments in our politics that aren’t linked in any obvious sense: the surge in covid-19 cases, and the battle over the coming resettlement of Afghan refugees in the United States.

Right now, the Republican Party is deeply split over the refugees created by the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, as a new report from the New York Times details. While some Republicans recognize an obligation to admit them here, as many worked alongside the United States, many are aligning with Trump and demagoguing them in the most despicable terms imaginable.

Meanwhile, with covid cases on the rise, GOP governors in states seeing the worst outbreaks are escalating efforts to blame this on migrants who, fleeing their own horrors, are attempting to cross our southern border. The right-wing media disinformation apparatus has pushed this message with lockstep unity and unfathomably disgusting vitriol.

These two developments together bode ill for what’s to come. They suggest that U.S. reactionary right-wing movements may be characterized by a very particular form of rising nativist and ethnonationalist cruelty at exactly the time when increasingly pressing global challenges will require a diametrically different approach.

The future of authoritarian populism

A new book helps us make sense of this. Called “The End of the End of History,” it projects the future of global politics at a moment when Western liberal democracy’s future no longer seems assured, as the allusion to Francis Fukuyama’s famous (and misrepresented) thesis suggests.

This sort of increasingly virulent reactionary politics forms one of the “ideologies of the future,” imagined by co-authors Alex Hochuli, George Hoare and Philip Cunliffe. They posit a future authoritarian populism fusing a longing for “strongman” leaders with a “Malthusian narrative.”

This narrative sees pressing global challenges as an opening to build up a zero-sum ideology that emphasizes “limited resources” and a “need to reduce surplus populations” by “removing outsiders and other elements” that corrupt the “indigenous” population, as the Real Answer to those challenges.

What’s relevant for us here is the book’s argument that covid has provided this form of politics with a new reason for being, a moment it will seize by telling a “nationalist” story of the global pandemic:

A nationalist interpretation would see a forceful rejection of globalization and cosmopolitanism: the organic body of the indigenous nation is threatened by deleterious outside influences, and limits on resources necessitate their exclusion.

I think something like this may be developing in the U.S. right now. There’s a peculiarly ominous signal in the way GOP governors such as Greg Abbott of Texas and Ron DeSantis of Florida are fusing their rejection of collective public health solutions with demagoguery about migrants.

Covid and migrants: A joint infestation

Abbott and DeSantis, each in their own way, declare that covid-bearing migrants are crossing our border en masse. This has been widely debunked, but the story is what matters: covid and migrants as joint infestation. Meanwhile, they have converted their public positions into platforms to speak to the Trump Rump, the shriveled national minority who sees mask mandates as collectivism run amok.

It’s the fomenting of hysterical opposition to local officials enabling communities to collectively protect themselves, combined with the aggressive redirecting of blame toward migrants instead , that makes this mix so combustible. Why take sensible collective action for the public good when calling for higher walls to keep out the joint infestation carries so much more force?

This conflation is everywhere. Right-wing media propagandists are relentlessly combining fearmongering about vaccines with scapegoating of migrants, positioning nativist, ethnonationalist cruelty as a kind of higher answer than science and collective action. Watch this extraordinary montage, and you cannot miss the centrality of that synergy:

Something similar is happening with Afghanistan refugees. Here our direct responsibility for their plight, and our reliance on them during the war, is absolutely undeniable. Indeed, as the Times reports, this is why some Republicans support resettling them here.

But this has only been met with an even more vehement denial of the very idea that this places a peculiar obligation on us. Indeed, as former Trump official Olivia Troye has revealed, Stephen Miller, the chief architect of Trump’s ethnonationalist agenda, expressly worked to undermine our programs for resettling Afghan refugees even as we were relying on them in real time.

Miller is now ubiquitous in shouting down the idea that we owe them anything, positioning them as the invaders, as the threat to us . And Miller is an active spokesman for the future direction of this sort of ethnonationalist politics.

‘Avocado politics’

This, too, bodes ill, particularly when you factor in climate change and the looming climate refugee problem. Climate is another area where our outsize contribution is undeniable. But this future reactionary right may well see this as an occasion to double down on that exclusionary “Malthusian” narrative.

Nils Gilman has coined the term “avocado politics” to describe this: green on the outside and brown (as in brown-shirted) on the inside. As Gilman suggests, this reactionary right-wing response will acknowledge the “climate emergency,” but primarily as a way to justify even higher “border walls to hold back the flood of those fleeing the consequences.”

It’s not a fun exercise to imagine what this might mean — in the right-wing imagination, anyway — for future militarization of our already hyper-militarized border. Unfortunately, this ugly convergence of covid and refugee politics should prompt us to start preparing for that future right now.

2 Likes

While I tend to feel there are parts that could have been handled better, it’s clear Biden was playing with a sabotaged deck when it came to Afghanistan, and given that, what’s been done there with the evacuation is miraculous, even as I am saddened by what is left behind, and what the Afghan people will lose.

Biden Deserves Credit, Not Blame, for Afghanistan

Americans should feel proud of what the U.S. government and military have accomplished in these past two weeks.

America’s longest war has been by any measure a costly failure, and the errors in managing the conflict deserve scrutiny in the years to come. But Joe Biden doesn’t “own” the mayhem on the ground right now. What we’re seeing is the culmination of 20 years of bad decisions by U.S. political and military leaders. If anything, Americans should feel proud of what the U.S. government and military have accomplished in these past two weeks. President Biden deserves credit, not blame.

Unlike his three immediate predecessors in the Oval Office, all of whom also came to see the futility of the Afghan operation, Biden alone had the political courage to fully end America’s involvement. Although Donald Trump made a plan to end the war, he set a departure date that fell after the end of his first term and created conditions that made the situation Biden inherited more precarious. And despite significant pressure and obstacles, Biden has overseen a military and government that have managed, since the announcement of America’s withdrawal, one of the most extraordinary logistical feats in their recent history. By the time the last American plane lifts off from Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 31, the total number of Americans and Afghan allies extricated from the country may exceed 120,000.

In the days following the fall of Kabul earlier this month—an event that triggered a period of chaos, fear, and grief—critics castigated the Biden administration for its failure to properly coordinate the departure of the last Americans and allies from the country. The White House was indeed surprised by how quickly the Taliban took control, and those early days could have been handled better. But the critics argued that more planning both would have been able to stop the Taliban victory and might have made America’s departure somehow tidier, more like a win or perhaps even a draw. The chaos, many said, was symptomatic of a bigger error. They argued that the United States should stay in Afghanistan, that the cost of remaining was worth the benefits a small force might bring.

Former military officers and intelligence operatives, as well as commentators who had long been advocates of extending America’s presence in Afghanistan, railed against Biden’s artificial deadline. Some critics were former Bush-administration officials or supporters who had gotten the U.S. into the mess in the first place, setting us on the impossible path toward nation building and, effectively, a mission without a clear exit or metric for success. Some were Obama-administration officials or supporters who had doubled down on the investment of personnel in the country and later, when the futility of the war was clear, lacked the political courage to withdraw. Some were Trump-administration officials or supporters who had negotiated with and helped strengthen the Taliban with their concessions in the peace deal and then had punted the ultimate exit from the country to the next administration.

They all conveniently forgot that they were responsible for some of America’s biggest errors in this war and instead were incandescently self-righteous in their invective against the Biden administration. Never mind the fact that the Taliban had been gaining ground since it resumed its military campaign in 2004 and, according to U.S. estimates even four years ago, controlled or contested about a third of Afghanistan. Never mind that the previous administration’s deal with the Taliban included the release of 5,000 fighters from prison and favored an even earlier departure date than the one that Biden embraced. Never mind that Trump had drawn down U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500 during his last year in office and had failed to repatriate America’s equipment on the ground. Never mind the delay caused by Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller’s active obstruction of special visas for Afghans who helped us.

Never mind the facts. Never mind the losses. Never mind the lessons. Biden, they felt, was in the wrong.

Despite the criticism, Biden, who had argued unsuccessfully when he was Barack Obama’s vice president to seriously reduce America’s presence in Afghanistan, remained resolute. Rather than view the heartbreaking scenes in Afghanistan in a political light as his opponents did, Biden effectively said, “Politics be damned—we’re going to do what’s right” and ordered his team to stick with the deadline and find a way to make the best of the difficult situation in Kabul.

The Biden administration nimbly adapted its plans, ramping up the airlift and sending additional troops into the country to aid crisis teams and to enhance security. Around-the-clock flights came into and went out of Afghanistan. Giant cargo planes departed, a number of them packed with as many as 600 occupants. Senior administration officials convened regular meetings with U.S. allies to find destinations for those planes to land and places for the refugees to stay. The State Department tracked down Americans in the country, as well as Afghans who had worked with the U.S., to arrange their passage to the airport. The Special Immigrant Visa program that the Trump administration had slowed down was kicked into high gear. Despite years of fighting, the administration and the military spoke with the Taliban many times to coordinate passage of those seeking to depart to the airport, to mitigate risks as best as possible, to discuss their shared interest in meeting the August 31 deadline.

The process was relentless and imperfect and, as we all have seen in the most horrific way, not without huge risks for those staying behind to help. On August 26, a suicide bomber associated with ISIS-K killed more than 150 Afghans and 13 American service members who were gathered outside the airport. However, even that heinous act didn’t deter the military. In a 24-hour period from Thursday to Friday, 12,500 people were airlifted out of the country and the president recommitted to meeting the August 31 deadline. And he did so even as his critics again sought to capitalize on tragedy for their own political gain: Republicans called for the impeachment of Biden and of Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Within hours of the attack at the airport, America struck back, killing two terrorists and injuring another with a missile launched from a drone. A separate drone strike targeted a vehicle full of explosives on Sunday. In doing so, Biden countered the argument that America might lack the intelligence or military resources we would need to defend ourselves against violent extremists now that our troops are leaving.

The very last chapter of America’s benighted stay in Afghanistan should be seen as one of accomplishment on the part of the military and its civilian leadership. Once again the courage and unique capabilities of the U.S. armed services have been made clear. And, in a stark change from recent years, an American leader has done the hard thing, the right thing: set aside politics and put both America’s interests and values first.

4 Likes

Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ speech shocked voters five years ago — but some feel it was prescient

Let’s start with the obvious: “Basket of deplorables” is a weird turn of phrase. There are baskets and there are deplorable people, but pairing the two is the oddest of linguistic odd couples.

Hillary Clinton said those three words in the final months of her 2016 presidential campaign, making rhetorical and political history. There were two kinds of Donald Trump supporters, she explained: Voters who feel abandoned and desperate, who she placed in one metaphorical basket, and those she called “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic” — her “basket of deplorables.”

Trump — the same man who announced his candidacy by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” — clutched his proverbial pearls, aghast that his opponent had uttered such a shocking slander. His campaign turned that insult into an asset; supporters wore hats and shirts proudly declaring themselves deplorable. Pundits seized on the phrase, debating who does and doesn’t deserve to be called that. Five years later, many believe “deplorables” — figuratively and literally — are here to stay.

This is not a cautionary tale: Clinton probably didn’t lose the White House because of a figure of speech. But it’s a lesson in how politicians make unforced errors. And, in a nation where half the country thinks the other half is wrong and possibly even deplorable, it’s about how we talk about each other.

On Sept. 9, 2016, Clinton was the opening act for Barbra Streisand at a glitzy fundraiser in New York City. A group of LGBTQ supporters were gathered at Cipriani restaurant, and the Democratic candidate had one job: to fire up her donors.

“I am all that stands between you and the apocalypse,” Clinton told the cheering crowd. She launched into all the things she found “deplorable” about Trump: He threatened marriage equality, cozied up to white supremacists, made racist and sexist remarks — all things she found “so personally offensive.”

She warned there were two months left in the race and no one should assume he wouldn’t be elected anyway. “Just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” There was laughter and applause.

The people in this basket, emboldened by Trump’s tweets, were “irredeemable,” she said. But there was another basket: Trump supporters who just felt the government had let them down and wanted change — and Democrats had to empathize to win these voters.

“Basket of deplorables” was not in Clinton’s prepared remarks. She often improvised in speeches. Reporters jumped on it, as did the Trump campaign, which immediately slammed Clinton for not running “a positive campaign.”

Clinton apologized the next day in a very Clintonesque manner: “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong,” she said in a statement. What was the magic number? She didn’t say. She did, however, double down on calling out Trump’s bigotry and racism.

“It’s very hard to say you have a message of civility and then turn around and talk about how essentially a quarter of the country is, in your view, a basket of deplorables,” said Jonathan Allen, author of “Shattered,” a study of Clinton’s 2016 campaign. “That is a screeching conflict of her overall message, which is we have a civilized country and we need to be stronger together — that this should be a kinder, gentler, unified country.”

It’s easy to get careless at fundraisers: The crowd is pumped up, the mood hopeful. In April 2008, Barack Obama told a San Francisco donor audience that working-class voters in the Rust Belt “cling to guns or religion” as a way to express their frustrations. (Clinton, in the last days of her failed bid for the Democratic nomination, said she was “taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America. His remarks are elitist and out of touch.”)

Mitt Romney got into trouble for his “47 percent” slip, which was secretly taped during a 2012 fundraiser that was closed to the media. The Republican nominee explained to wealthy donors that almost half of American voters would pick Obama because they were dependent on government handouts. “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he told the crowd.

Clinton made the classic campaign mistake of playing pundit by explaining strategy to donors. She wasn’t writing off all Trump supporters; those who were scared and jobless might be won over. It was a delicate rhetorical dance: Have compassion for some , be afraid of others.

Trump repeatedly mocked Clinton voters, but his fans never worried it would hurt him. In fact, they loved him for it, as well as his attacks on the media, the candidates in his own party, John McCain’s war record and the judge in one of his lawsuits. “The more offensive and insulting he could be, the happier he was with it,” Allen said.

That was Trump being Trump. Clinton’s deplorables comment, Allen said, seemed to reveal a private thought that she had never dared state in public. In that way, it “ended up being symbolic of one of the things that her critics said they hated about her, which is that they believed that she’s inauthentic. And oddly, I think that was a pretty authentic moment.”

When asked about “deplorables,” Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, said she was never afraid to denounce racism — just two weeks earlier, she gave a significant speech deconstructing the alt-right and the “quest to preserve white maleness” in America. “The deplorable comment may have been politically less than ideal, but it has been proven right again and again over the last five years.”

More sophisticated than “disgusting,” more biting than “unforgivable,” “deplorable” carries judgment with a side of self-righteousness. It comes from Latin, then reemerged in 17th-century France, where throwing shade is a national sport.

Clinton would use “deplorable” in statements when she was secretary of state, but as an adjective, not a noun. Washington jargon traditionally puts things in “buckets,” Clinton shifted that to “baskets” in the month leading up to the Sept. 9 fundraiser.

She used “deplorables” the day before her speech, in an interview with Israeli TV: “You can take Trump supporters and put them in two big baskets. There are what I would call the deplorables — you know, the racists and the haters.”

“It’s worth remembering that when Hillary Clinton comes up with a phrase she likes, she tends to repeat it a lot and she can be very biting and she can be quippy,” Allen said. “It would have been different if she had said, ‘Half the Trump voters are behaving deplorably.’ It’s a small thing, but it’s a big thing.”

In Slate, linguist Ben Zimmer speculated that “baskets of deplorables” was inspired by a “parade of horribles” — a legal term that Clinton would be familiar with, referring to the negative consequences of a judicial decision. Several weeks later, Clinton joked about it at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner: “I just want to put you all in a basket of adorables.”

But the damage was done.

“I knew the first time I heard that phrase that she was very, very stupid for using it,” Republican strategist Frank Luntz said. “It is as insulting as any word in the English language. To be deplorable means you have no excuse as a human being. If you’re a deplorable person, it is saying that there is no redeeming quality to you whatsoever.”

Luntz knew it would be an opportunity for Trump to galvanize his base. “I thought she had committed a potentially fatal error: Insult your opponent, attack your opponent, criticize your opponent, even condemn your opponent, but never, ever, ever condemn your opponent’s supporters because you need their votes.”

Luntz tested “deplorable” in focus groups and found that it didn’t make voters more pro-Trump. “But it hardened opposition to her instantly as someone who had no heart, who was too ideological and dismissive of people who disagreed with her.”

A consultant to Clinton’s campaign agreed. Writing in the Boston Globe shortly after the election, Diane Hessan said that she tracked undecided voters and their reaction to “deplorable” was stronger than the controversy over Clinton’s emails or FBI Director James B. Comey’s comments about them. “There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice,” she wrote.

In “What Happened,” Clinton’s memoir of the campaign, she acknowledged that generalizing was almost always unwise and wrote that she regretted handing Trump “a political gift” by insulting well-intentioned people. “But too many of Trump’s core supporters do hold views that I find — there’s no other word for it — deplorable.”

Of course, voters are notoriously harder on female politicians, regardless of what they say. As Rebecca Traister stated in a 2017 New York magazine profile of Clinton, “A competent woman losing a job to an incompetent man is not an anomalous Election Day surprise; it is Tuesday in America. To acknowledge the role sexism played in 2016 is not to make excuses for the very real failings of Clinton and her campaign; it is to try to paint a more complete picture.”

In hindsight, how did “deplorables” play into all this? “It is impossible to say, ‘People reacted this way because of sexism,’ ” Traister said this week. “That’s not how it works. But you also cannot take sexism out of the equation whenever you’re talking about Hillary Clinton.”

And Trump? The Republican nominee, always looking for an applause line, said he was offended on behalf of all his supporters. “While my opponent slanders you as deplorable and irredeemable, I call you hard-working American patriots who love your country,” he told his audience at an Iowa rally. The campaign rushed out an ad in battleground states: “You know what’s deplorable? Hillary Clinton viciously demonizing hard working people like you.”

Mike Pence jumped into the fray: “For Hillary Clinton to express such disdain for millions of Americans is one more reason that disqualifies her to serve in the highest office,” he told reporters. During an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Pence condemned Clinton but, when pressed, declined to call any Trump supporter deplorable, even, say, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke, who endorsed Trump. “No,” answered Pence. “I am not in the name-calling business, Wolf.”

MAGA fans could buy official “deplorable” merchandise from Team Trump — and they did happily. The term was “so mean that the only way for them to respond was to actually embrace it,” Luntz said. “And that’s how I realized she was in real trouble: If your strongest attack against your opponent is embraced by your opponents, that removes the sting.”

Five years later, you can purchase hats, T-shirts, hoodies and other gifts for the deplorables in your life. Patriot Depot, one of several online stores selling to Trump fans, offers a “Deplorables Club — Lifetime Member” cap for $19.95, The sales blurb explains: “Being a Deplorable is now a mark of pride among God-fearing, gun-loving, hard-working Americans.”

Clinton’s unusual turn of phrase foreshadowed an increasingly polarized America. We’re not just divided along ideological lines — we don’t even like each other very much.

The Pew Research Center found that from December 2016 to September 2019, the shares of both parties that viewed members of the other “somewhat” coldly or “very” coldly increased, as did the percentage that viewed them as “immoral.”

Those assessments were undoubtedly influenced by the 2017 Charlottesville rally and have been hardened by pandemic restrictions, Black Lives Matter protests and the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol.

“I’m proud that Secretary Clinton called out racism and bigotry in 2016, especially when that wasn’t the politically safe thing to do,” campaign speechwriter Dan Schwerin said.

Now, many of her fans believe she was prescient about “half” of Trump’s base.

“After four years of President Trump,” Allen said. “I think that there are a lot of Democrats and some Republicans who would say that was an undercount.”

4 Likes

Another powerful piece from Charles Blow about the hypocrisy of white Evangelicals and their utter abandonment of the “higher morality” they have long claimed they represent.

White Evangelicals Shun Morality for Power

Evangelical Christians castigated Bill Clinton in wake of his “improper relationship” with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky. He had sinned. He would be stoned.

Franklin Graham, the evangelical minister, wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 1998 that Clinton’s “extramarital sexual behavior in the Oval Office now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family,” and that “private conduct does have public consequences.”

He concluded:

“Mr. Clinton’s sin can be forgiven, but he must start by admitting to it and refraining from legalistic doublespeak. According to the Scripture, the president did not have an ‘inappropriate relationship’ with Monica Lewinsky — he committed adultery. He didn’t ‘mislead’ his wife and us — he lied. Acknowledgment must be coupled with genuine remorse. A repentant spirit that says, ‘I’m sorry. I was wrong. I won’t do it again. I ask for your forgiveness,’ would go a long way toward personal and national healing.”

But Mr. Graham never demanded the same of Donald Trump. To the contrary, he became one of Trump’s biggest defenders.

When a tape was released during the 2016 campaign of Trump bragging years earlier about sexually assaulting women, Graham revealed his true motives: It wasn’t religious piety, but rather raw politics.

He wrote on Facebook that Trump’s “crude comments” could not be defended, “but the godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended.” He continued, “The most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court.”

The Supreme Court represents a more lasting power than the presidency, a way to lock in an ideology beyond the reach of election cycles and changing demographics at least for a generation.

In an interview with Axios on HBO in 2018, Graham said of his support of Trump, “I never said he was the best example of the Christian faith. He defends the faith. And I appreciate that very much.”

The courts are central to that supposed defense, in Graham’s calculation.

Case in point, his rigid defense of Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of cornering her in a bedroom at a 1982 house party. Graham dismissed the allegations as “not relevant” and said of the episode:

Well, there wasn’t a crime that was committed. These are two teenagers, and it’s obvious that she said no and he respected it and walked away — if that’s the case, but he says he didn’t do it. He just flat out says that’s just not true. Regardless if it was true, these are two teenagers and she said no and he respected that, so I don’t know what the issue is. This is just an attempt to smear his name, that’s all.

The hypocrisy of white evangelicals, taken into full context, shouldn’t have been shocking, I suppose, but as a person who grew up in the church (although I’m not a religious person anymore), it was still disappointing.

I had grown up hearing from pulpits that it was the world that changed, not God’s word. The word was like a rock. A lie was a lie, yesterday, today and tomorrow, no matter who told it.

I had hoped that there were more white evangelicals who embraced the same teachings, who would not abide by the message the Grahams of the world were advancing, who would stand on principle.

But I was wrong. A report for the Pew Research Center published last week found that, contrary to an onslaught of press coverage about evangelicals who had left the church, disgusted by its embrace of the president, “There is solid evidence that white Americans who viewed Trump favorably and did not identify as evangelicals in 2016 were much more likely than white Trump skeptics to begin identifying as born-again or evangelical Protestants by 2020.”

That’s right, the lying, philandering, thrice-married Trump, who has been accused by dozens of women of sexual misconduct or assault, may actually have grown the ranks of white evangelicals rather than shrunk them.

To get some perspective on this, I reached out to an expert, Anthea Butler, a professor of religious studies and Africana studies and the chair of the religious studies department at the University of Pennsylvania. She is also the author of the recently released book “White Evangelical Racism.”

As Professor Butler told me, the reason that some people might be surprised by these findings is that “they believed the hype.” For years, evangelicals had claimed that they were upholding morality and fighting injustice. But what the movement has really been since the 1970s, said Butler, is “a political arm of the Republican Party.” As Butler put it, evangelicals now “use moral issues as a wedge to get political power.”

Butler concluded, “We need to quit coddling evangelicals and allowing them to use these moral issues to hide behind, because it’s very clear that that’s not what the issue is. The issue is that they believe in anti-vaxxing, they believe in racism, they believe in anti-immigration, they believe that only Republicans should run the country and they believe in white supremacy.”

3 Likes

Many in the nation, including medical providers, are suffering from compassion fatigue toward vaccine refusers for placing themselves unnecessarily in danger.

I don’t believe anybody should be refused treatment, but understand this burnout.

Vaccine Refusers Risk Compassion Fatigue

After the horrors that health-care workers have endured during the pandemic, many are struggling to sympathize with people who won’t protect themselves.

On social media, I’ve been seeing sentiments that I never thought I’d see anyone express in a public forum. People who choose to be unvaccinated should not be offered lung transplants . What if people with COVID-19 who didn’t get the vaccine have to wait in the Emergency Department until everyone else is seen? Should unvaccinated patients just be turned away?

These are harsh, angry feelings. And some of the people giving voice to them are doctors.

I am an obstetrician in New York. I have been working with pregnant COVID-19 patients from the very beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, in a medical institution and city that have cared for thousands of patients with the disease. Health-care workers have suffered through a terrible year and a half—a period first defined by a lack of masks and gloves, and throughout by the very real fear of personal sickness and death. We have been afraid of bringing the disease home, of infecting our spouses, of leaving our children parentless. For about three months, I didn’t kiss my children.

Read: When keeping your distance is the best way to show you care

Every day, my colleagues and I trudged past the temporary morgues in our hospital parking lots and the ICUs set up in the auditoriums and operating rooms and hallways; we signed too many death certificates; we washed our hands until they blistered before we let our families near us. We did that, every day, because we were trained to care for humans who needed us.

A lot of us went to work every day because the world needs to keep turning, and in that time, we were the ones turning it. Many others left medicine. One reason I didn’t was that humans needed help and I could provide it. But I also kept working because I needed to believe that, if I was ever in danger, other humans would come help me. Our comparative advantage as humans is that we can take care of one another and overcome adversity together. I did my part week after week, month after month.

Finally, in the depths of winter, during the week of my birthday, I received my first vaccine shot. Science had brought us a solution, and we could finally see the end of all those months of fear, exhaustion, and sacrifice.

But that’s not what happened. COVID-19 hasn’t ended. Instead, infection rates are going up. The Delta variant has taken hold, and hospitals are filling up again. But this time the suffering seems different, because it is avoidable. Optional. A choice.

The main reason the pandemic in the United States is not over is because people are not getting vaccinated. Some people may have good reasons for not getting a shot, but most people who refuse vaccination do not seem to be acting based on data or evidence. The refusals that we read every day seem more rooted in a general mistrust of government, or in a strong identity as “not that kind of people.” And those vaccine refusals mean people are getting sick, and will need care, and may die needlessly.

This is a fact that many of us in health care—all exhausted, all having given too much already—are having a hard time ignoring as we head into a new wave of COVID-19 patients.

Read: How did it come to this?

When people make their personal decision about whether to get vaccinated, they are not thinking about the trauma their health-care providers have experienced since early last year. And I am not asking them to consider it. Professionalism mandates that physicians focus on the disease in front of them, not the behavior that may have contributed to it. When my colleagues diagnose chlamydia in a patient, their first priority is administering antibiotics, not delivering a lecture about asshole boyfriends. But once those antibiotics are prescribed, that same professionalism must include making sure that the patient knows how chlamydia is transmitted, and how to avoid ending up in this situation again.

That person may or may not listen to a doctor, and that’s understandable. However, the population-level rejection of COVID-19 vaccines is a different phenomenon—and one that’s much more personally threatening to my colleagues and me. By refusing the most effective intervention, people are risking not only their own life but the lives of many around them. That includes those who cannot get vaccinated—my children among them. Because of the choice that vaccine refusers are making, my job may again force me to avoid embracing my children.

“What makes me the maddest,” one of my doctor friends told me, “is that these people will reject science right until the second they need everything I have to keep them alive, and then they feel that they can come to our door and be entitled to that help and that hard work.” This friend is characterizing the inconsistency in the behavior she sees in people declining a vaccine but then demanding medical care based on the same science. That inconsistency feels, to her and to other dedicated medical professionals trying to survive this pandemic, very much like dishonesty.

Unlike during the pre-vaccine phase of the pandemic, the current upsurge of suffering isn’t one that humanity has to go through. People are choosing it. And intent matters. Intent is the difference between a child who goes hungry because their parent can’t afford dinner and the one who goes hungry because their parent won’t buy them dinner. Having the ability to provide relief but not do so is cruel. To many medical providers working today, the rejection of lifesaving COVID-19 vaccines feels like a giant “Fuck you” from 29 percent of American adults. We will keep providing the best care possible, but they are making our job much harder.

Not all health-care workers agree, of course. Plenty of hospital workers remain unvaccinated, and some have even staged protests against hospital-wide vaccine mandates. But most of us got vaccinated, and we’ll go to work tomorrow and the next day, no matter what. We will start IVs and give medicines and intubate patients no matter what bumper sticker is on their car. We are holding up our end of a bargain with society. But is society fulfilling its end?

The pandemic has taken away so much: millions of jobs, more than a year of education for tens of millions of children, more than 600,000 American lives. Amid this new, largely preventable wave of infections, some health-care providers are losing something else: the belief that all of us can come together as a people to solve a problem. Doing the work of curing human bodies is harder when some of one’s faith in humanity is lost.

What comes next? Future waves of COVID-19, probably; a widespread return to masking, perhaps; vaccine mandates in some limited settings, eventually. With time and common sense, the United States may get to a point at which infections subside. But it may not. I would argue that even if we do, Americans will have wasted time, energy, and lives. A year ago, we worried about dwindling N95-mask supplies and a limited ventilator inventory. Now we are burning through our most irreplaceable health-care resource: hope.

3 Likes