Archive for category: Musings

Liz Cheney has been the recipient of much wrath from the Trumpism wing of the Republican party when she courageously asserted that “The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning the democratic system.”

Before elaborating on the significance of this bold statement, let me emphatically assert my agreement with the assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump is indeed a “big lie.” There is absolutely no credible evidence of significant voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election. All claims to such fraudulence have been rejected by members of the judiciary. This makes me thankful that America’s Founding Fathers had the wisdom to establish a tripartite system of governance, with appropriate checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, intended to prevent a president, like Donald Trump, committed to establishing autocratic rule by the Executive branch, from establishing such autocratic rule.

The truth is that, despite some minor glitches that are unavoidable in any large-scale election, the 2020 presidential election was eminently fair, thanks to the faithful discharge of their duties on the part of state election officials, both Republicans and Democrats.

As an aside, the most pernicious aspect of many recent state legislative initiatives to modify state electoral procedures is the transfer of responsibility for ensuring the fairness of elections from these trustworthy election officials to state legislatures.

As the Republican party struggles with defining its future, the tension is between adhering to the truth or embracing a “big lie” for the purpose of gaining legislative power. As Frida Ghitis puts it, the current debate within the Republican party is one “between plain truth and deliberative lies propagated by self-serving politicians at the expense of their country’s democracy.”

The nature of this tension is made clear by the disagreements between Liz Cheney and Kevin McCarthy as to how the Republican party should move into the future, which makes clear that there are two alternative ways for the Republican party to proceed: McCarthy asks Republicans to “compromise truth for power”; Cheney asks Republications to “sacrifice power for the sake of truth.” Let me elaborate.

I believe that May 12, 2021 will go down in history as a low point in the history of the Republican party; the day that Liz Cheney was removed from her leadership position with the National Republican Congressional Committee because she spoke the truth about the 2020 presidential election: It was not stolen by Joe Biden.

The main culprit is Kevin McCarthy who views embracing the “big lie” as a means to regain political power in the mid-term elections in 2022, with him sitting at the top of this power structure as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. The overwhelming evidence suggests that that the primary motivation that drives McCarthy is a lust for power. This has led him to first say that President Trump bore responsibility for the insurrection on January 6 and say later that Trump did not incite the violence. He can’t have it both ways. One of these assertions is a lie. And anyone who lies to maintain and increase his power has lost all credibility.

McCarthy has also suggested that embracing the “big lie” is a means to obtain “unity” within the Republican party. But any attempt to build unity around a lie is doomed to failure in the long-run, as long as our tripartite system of governance is sustained (And the manner is which our judicial branch of governance withstood the “big lie” from Donald Trump is encouraging).

Before presenting an alternative vision for a Republican future, here are my major criticisms of the Trumpian vision summarized above. First, by focusing exclusively on gaining and retaining power, Trumpian Republicans evidence little concern for fostering the well-being of their constituents. As a result, their politics is strictly oppositional, focusing on grievances and their fear of losing a position of privilege in America. As a result, their policy positions are mostly negative, dealing with what they are against in the Democratic agenda. They present a meager positive agenda designed to improve the lives of those who elected them to office.

My second criticism flows from my Christian faith commitment. Simply put, from a Christian perspective, a perceived “good end” (regaining political power In 2022) never justifies an “evil means” (lying) to attempt to accomplish that end. As unrealistic as it sounds, Romans 12:21 teaches that evil is to be overcome with good. Therefore, if Republicans believe that the Democratic political agenda is “evil,” embracing the “big lie” is not an acceptable option for overcoming that evil. And, for those readers who believe that such evil means can be justified by the “good end” of regaining political power in 2022, I note my belief that such a short-term gain will eventually lead to long-term disaster for the Republican party, because, in the long-run, faithfulness to our tripartite form of democracy will ensure that truth, not lies, prevail.

Is there an alternative for a Republican future that rejects the “big lie” that is at the core of a Trumpian vision for a Republican future? A small group of Republican politicians, including Adam Kinzinger, Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney advocate for such an alternative Republican future; one that refuses to sacrifice truth and embraces classical conservative Republican principles as an alternative to the agenda of the prevailing Trumpian Republican agenda, which rejects these classical conservative Republican principles. Possibly the most egregious example of how Trumpism is contrary to these classical conservative principles is the Trumpian rejection of “welcoming” immigrants to America.

For Republicans who may be reading this Musing (hope springs eternal!), I highly recommend going to Adam Kinzinger’s website (www.country1st.com), which he describes as a “home for reasonable people of good will; seeking common ground to make our country better for future generations.”

Why do I, a registered Democrat, meddle in the Republican business of defining a viable Republican future? Because I believe that for American democracy to thrive, we need at least two strong political parties who have competing views as to what is good for our citizens and are willing to engage in respectful conversations in search for common ground.

I close with a reminder to readers who share my commitment to the Christian faith. The biblical vision for the nature of “power” and its use rejects the prevailing political view (on the part of both Republicans and Democrats) that “power” means holding tightly onto positions of authority.

An alternative view of “power” was exemplified by Jesus, who I aspire to follow.  As recorded in Matthew 4: 8-10, Jesus clearly rejected the temptation to be in charge of “all the kingdoms of this world.” Rather, he chose a life devoted to selflessly meeting the needs of the “least” members of society (see Matthew 12:31-46) which contributed to the “rulers” of his day crucifying him on a cross. That is indeed the exercise of “power.” The “power of love.”

Those committed to the alternative future for Republicanism embraced by Adam Kinzinger and a minority of other Republicans are not quick to call their quest an expression of “love.” But, according to my understanding of the biblical teachings about “love,” that is what they are embracing, since caring for the well-being of others, and respectfully talking to others about competing views as to what constitutes human well-being are both deep expressions of the love for others to which Jesus calls those who aspire to be his followers.

 

Social media is replete with recriminations from citizens on the right side of the political spectrum as to the “far left” political agenda. Not to be outdone, those on the left side of the political spectrum bemoan the “far right” political agenda.

Such recriminations only serve to eliminate the possibility of a genuine respectful conversation about disagreements because of their generality. What, exactly are the “far left” or “far right” agendas? Genuine respectful conversations about disagreements will be possible only if those on either side of the political spectrum stop talking in generalities and begin talking about specific public policy issues. In what follows, I will attempt to outline the contours of a potential respectful conversation about public policy issues that focus on the problem of poverty, being careful to introduce the voices of those who are actually experiencing severe poverty; thereby introducing the need to exercise empathy (putting yourself in the other person’s shoes) when embarking on such a conversation.

The problem of poverty in America is more complex than is acknowledged by many on both sides of the political spectrum, and I do not have the expertise to deal with that complexity. But my overarching perception is that those on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge that too many Americans are experiencing abject poverty, and where they have strong disagreements is about the causes of such poverty and the best solutions, It is also my perception that the root cause of these disagreements is differing beliefs about the role of individual initiatives to thrive in our capitalistic free-market economy and the possible role, if any, of governmental assistance programs for those who have difficulty competing in a free-market economy.

Any conversation about poverty in America should include voices from the “far left” and “far right” that give differing responses to the following Leading Questions.

 

• What are the root causes of poverty and what are the best solutions?
• Are there any appropriate restraints (regulations) that should be placed on our free-market economy that will help those who do not thrive in that economy to avoid poverty?
• Is there an optimum system of taxation for combatting poverty?
• Are there systemic problems in America, such as racism, that contribute to high levels of poverty, and, if so, what is the best way to address such problems?

 

Given my call for respectful conversations about contentious issues, like the causes and solutions for poverty. the question remains as to the best venues for such respectful conversation initiatives and the best cohort of conversation partners for each venue. I will respond to this question with two proposals; one intended for local non-political organizations and one intended for legislative bodies at the local, state or national level.

My first proposal is for consideration by local organizations, like local churches, that are experiencing strong disagreements about a local contentious issue, like the causes and solutions for local poverty. In my forthcoming book Let’s Talk, I make the following concrete recommendations for churches and other local organizations to navigate such troubled waters (based on my own experience of what has worked well and what has been disastrous in my own local attempts to orchestrate respectful conversations about contentious issues).

** Recruit a small, balanced cohort of conversation partners (possibly eight to twelve in number) who will collectively present a good balance of contrasting beliefs about the issue at hand.

** This cohort should include scholars who can bring  perspectives that are deeply informed by theoretical reflections and the results of empirical research relative to the issue being discussed. For example, for the issue of poverty, scholars need to report on reflections from academicians on the existence, or not, of systemic racism that may prevent persons of color from thriving in our free-market economy.

** Most importantly, this cohort should include persons for whom the issue at hand is not an abstraction to be only considered by scholars, but is an integral part of their “life stories” that may cause existential pain. For example, for the issue of poverty, the conversation partners need to hear from someone who has lost his or her job in the restaurant industry and is wondering where the next meal is coming from or when an eviction notice will be arriving,

** Before the conversation starts, each conversation partner must agree to a set of “Guidelines for Respectful Conversation” that includes a willingness to give expression to the rare combination of “commitment” to one’s own beliefs (sufficient to express those beliefs with clarity and deep conviction) and “openness” to listening carefully to the contrary beliefs of others (sufficient to re-examine one’s own beliefs).

** Before embarking on the presentation and discussion of contrary beliefs, the conversation    partners should build the mutual understanding and trust that is needed before laying bare and then talking respectfully talking about strong disagreements by “getting to know one another”; which includes listening to the personal stories of the other partners that deeply inform their beliefs about the issue being discussed.

Thus ends my outline of a proposal for respectful conversations about contentious issues, like poverty, for local non-political organizations, like churches. Will numerous local organizations be willing to embark on such highly structured conversations. From my experience, I doubt it. In our highly polarized culture, the idea of actually listening to and talking respectfully about disagreements is anathema; preference being given to remaining in our echo chambers where we only hear the voices of those who already agree with us.

So, the reader of this Musing may conclude that my first proposal only proves that I am living in an imaginary totally unrealistic “la-la land.” But I am just getting warmed up; for my next proposal for dealing with contentious issues. like poverty, within the political realm (legislative bodies at the local, state or national level) may lead you to conclude that I have taken the concept of “utopian lack of realism” to a previously unheard level of foolishness.

Here is my ideal scenario for how any legislative body (local, state or national) should seek to pass legislation regarding any contentious public policy issue such as poverty.

First, the legislative body should appoint a “gang of eight” (or thereabouts) to begin consideration of the issue. Members of this gang should include members of the legislative body who have proven interest and a reasonable level of expertise relative to the issue and who have reputations for being willing to engage in respectful conversations with other members of the legislative body with whom they have had significant disagreements. It is important to choose a cohort of gang members who will likely present a good balance of perspectives from both sides of the political aisle.

The gang should host hearings in which their invited conversation partners include scholars who can report on theoretical reflections and the results of empirical research relative to the issue and selected citizens who can give voice, from their life stories, to the existential pain they have experienced related to the issue being considered.

Based on the results of these hearings. The gang should deliberate until they can uncover sufficient common ground to formulate a proposal for a legislative bill to be sent to the entire legislative body for action.

Of course, as the pervasive legislative deadlock in Washington amply demonstrates, getting such legislation passed by the entire legislative body is a daunting task, to put it mildly. But there are some signs of hope. A success in the first step of this process occurred in 2013, although the second step failed. I refer to a comprehensive immigration bill that a gang of eight in the U. S, Senate agreed to, which called for BOTH a pathway to citizenship for those who had entered the country illegally or who had over-extended their visas AND appropriate punishments (therefore, not amnesty) for those who had violated the law. Alas, this bill died in the House Representatives.

But a more recent example of the success of both steps occurred when a small bipartisan gang forged a bill for Covid relief, costing about $890 billion, that passed in both the Senate and House,

But I urge you to NOT reach a conclusion as to the viability, or lack thereof, of my proposal for the political realm by pointing to instances of success, or, more likely, failure in our highly polarized society. That is because the desire to be successful is not my primary motivation for my second proposal (as well as my first proposal).

As I elaborate in my forthcoming book, and reiterate every chance I get, I am totally inner-directed (Drawing here on the distinction that sociologist David Reisman made between being other-directed and being inner-directed in his 1950s classic The Lonely Crowd). What I decide to do at any time is motivated by my understanding of what us the “right thing to do.” And I always aspire to decide on the “right thing to do” based on my present understanding of Christian values, the foremost of which is “love.”

I am dismayed at the extent to which evangelical Christians have uncritically embraced the agendas of the Democratic or Republican parties, ranging from the “Far Left” to the “Far Right without “digging deep down to a consideration of whether these agendas comport with Christian values.

On the basis of my attempt to start with my understanding of the Christian value of “love,” the foundational premise that has informed all my respectful conversation initiatives is that to give someone a safe and welcoming space to express disagreement with me and then to talk respectfully about that disagreement is a deep expression of love.

I have experienced some successes and some monumental failures as I have sought to live out this foundational premise. But I am not driven by a quest for success. Rather, drawing on the parable of the mustard seed taught by Jesus, as recorded in in Matthew 13:31-32, I understand my calling as a follower of Jesus as planting “tiny seeds of redemption,” entrusting the harvest to God.

I never tire of saying that you cannot predict beforehand the results of a respectful conversation. This truth makes a charade of calls for international diplomacy that stipulate up-front what the results of that diplomacy must be. It also helps to clarify that the elusive word “bipartisanship” needs to be viewed as a process and not an end result. I will illustrate by considering the current debate as to whether President Biden is being bipartisan in his attempt to get Congress to pass a $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package.

As I have argued elsewhere, the unyielding pre-condition for a respectful conversation to take place is that the conversation partners embrace that rare combination of “commitment” and “openness” that combines a willingness to express one’s beliefs about the contentious issue at hand with clarity and deep conviction at the same time that one is willing to listen carefully to the contrary beliefs of conversation partners and the reasons they have for holding to those contrary beliefs and a willingness to re-examine one’s own beliefs in light of this careful listening; which could lead (but doesn’t have to lead) to changing one’s beliefs.

In that light, I believe that a politician on either side of the political aisle is being bipartisan if he/she practices such respectful conversation characterized by exemplification of this rare combination of commitment and openness; whatever the end result of practicing such a process may turn out to be.

So, relative to the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package that President Biden has proposed, he is being bipartisan if he practices such respectful conversation in his engagement with Republicans who have proposed a $6 billion relief package. A good sign was his willingness to listen to the contrary views of 10 Republicans. It is my hope that in the weeks ahead, when there will be time to refine the 1.9 trillion proposal, such respectful conversations will continue. President Biden has indicted his willingness to talk further about elements of his proposal, like the targeting of the $1400 relief checks. I hope that such respectful conversations continue. It is possible that such ongoing conversations will not lead to major changes in the current $1.9 trillion proposal because of the compelling argument that the current needs of Americans in the wake of the devastation caused by the coronavirus pandemic are so great that bold steps must be taken (an argument that is embraced by almost 70% of Americans). If this means that legislation is passed  that has no Republican support, the process of bipartisanship will still have been practiced if deliberations have been characterized by respectful conversations.

The above reflections throw light on President Biden’ claim that he wishes to promote “unity” rather than division among Americans. Such unity does not mean that all Americans will agree with whatever relief package is eventually passed by Congress. Rather, the unity that we must seek is a shared commitment to a process of deliberation that is characterized by respectful conversations.

 

 

 

 

This Musing will appear as an Addendum in a book I have written that will be published by Cascade Books in the Spring of 2021. Therefore, you will find references to various chapters in that book, which is tentatively titled “Let’s Talk: Bridging Divisive Lines Though Inclusive Respectful Conversations.”

I wrote this concluding addendum to my book shortly after the Associated Press declared that Joe Biden has defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.  I am assuming that the courts will not find sufficient merit in the lawsuits being filed in various states by Trump’s lawyers to overturn this result

In the reflections that follow, I will first explain why I am pleased with this election result. I will then present my vision for the future of America, starting with the presidency of Joe Biden. A critical distinction that will inform all of my reflections is between the “ends” one hopes to accomplish through the political process (the goals of one’s political agenda) and the political “means” one uses to seek to accomplish one’s desired ends. For reasons that will eventually become apparent, I start with the issue of “means.”

Contrasting Modes of Political Engagement

One important aspect of the means you choose to seek to accomplish a desired political end is the manner in which you engage those who disagree with you about the desirability of that end.

It is gross understatement to say that Donald Trump and Joe Biden take different approaches to engaging with those who disagree with them about the desirability of any given political end.

Donald Trump typically vilifies those who disagree with him, by means of numerous tweets and interviews; often resorting to nasty name-calling and demonization. In doing so, he has played to the fears and resentments of his base and has sowed deep divisions among American citizens.

In stark contrast, Joe Biden’s past political experience and his promise for the future point to his respect for those who disagree with him; which motivates his desire to build bipartisan bridges between those on opposite sides of the political aisle who have significant disagreements about any given political issue (recognizing, of course, that whether Biden can succeed in building such bridges remains to be seen – more about that later).

Why does this distinction in the means for engaging political opponents matter? Speaking first from my Christian perspective, it matters to me because Trump’s manner of engagement is clearly antithetical to my understanding of the loving way in which Jesus calls Christians to engage those who disagree with them. As I have said many times in this book, I believe that a deep expression of the love of neighbor to which Jesus calls all Christians is to create a safe and welcoming space for someone who disagrees with you to express that disagreement; followed by respectful conversation about the substance of the disagreement. I have seen absolutely no public evidence that President Trump ever practiced this deep expression of love of neighbor during his four years as our President.

Of course, not all Americans have made a commitment to the Christian faith. But it is my belief that this loving way of engaging those who disagree with you is an expression of our shared humanity, whatever religious or secular worldview one may be committed to.

But my concern about Donald Trump’s vilification of those with disagree with him runs deeper than what I have just said. During the course of history, such vilification of political opponents has often been the first step away from democratic forms of governance to dictatorships. There is irrefutable evidence that Donald Trump has authoritarian, dictatorial tendencies that, if unchecked, could lead to the unraveling of democracy in America.[1] (witness his continuous assault on the checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government that our Founding Father’s had the wisdom to establish).

My primary reason for applauding the election of Joe Biden is my rejection of the vitriolic means that Donald Trump uses to engage those who disagree with him and my hope that the welcoming of dissent approach that I believe Joe Biden will bring to his presidential duties will preserve the messy democratic process of doing politics in America.

But that conclusion on my part is based only on consideration of the starkly contrasting means that Trump and Biden have chosen to engage those who disagree with them. What about the political ends that Biden will pursue and that Trump would have pursued had he been re-elected?

Consideration of contrasting political ends surely makes things more complicated; as witnessed to by the fact that in the local small group conversation about the Trump presidency that I recently hosted (that I reported on in chapter 7), all the conversation partners agreed that the way in which President Trump engages his political opponents does not measure up to their Christian standards for lovingly engaging others. But, for the four Trump supporters who participated in this conversation, this deficiency in the means Trump has chosen to do politics is outweighed by the political ends he has accomplished, which they view as being consistent with their Christian values. Therefore, I must now address the thorny issue of the nature and significance of the contrasting political ends embraced by Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

Contrary Beliefs About Political Ends

The substantive political issues about which Christians in America, and all other citizens, disagree are legion, including climate change, foreign trade policies, abortion, relationships with other countries, justice for all races and other people groups relative to opportunities and social benefits (the list goes on).

To illustrate the complexity of the diversity of beliefs in our pluralistic society about any contentious issue, here are some snippets of the sharply contrasting beliefs about abortion that were expressed in the local small-group Trump Conversation that I recently hosted.

On the one hand, for one Trump supporter, a total ban on abortion at any time during a pregnancy was the only position consistent with biblical values. Therefore, her support of Trump in 2016 appeared to be based primarily on her belief that if Trump was elected President, he would advocate for the appointment of Supreme Court justices who would overturn the allowing for “abortion on demand” of Roe vs. Wade, in sharp contrast to the “abortion on demand” position that she attributed to Hillary Clinton and, erroneously, to “all” Democrats.

In sharp contrast, other participants in the Trump conversation, including but not limited to Democrats, took a more nuanced position. While no participant embraced an “abortion on demand” position, some took the position that there may be tragic cases where an abortion is morally legitimate, such as a case where medical experts judge that a tragic moral choice must be made between saving the life of the mother and saving the life of the fetus. These dissenters to the “total ban on abortion” position also argued that a comprehensive and consistent “pro-life” position cannot limit itself to the “single issue” of protecting life before birth. Rather, attention must also be given to ensuring a high quality of life from the cradle to the grave.

In our Trump conversation, we did not resolve these stark disagreements about abortion. But we at least created a safe and welcoming space for these disagreements to be expressed and we got beyond the unloving tactic on vilifying those who disagreed with us. In fact, as reported in chapter 7, we came to acknowledge and respect the deep Christian commitment of those who disagreed with us about this hot-button issue, which was no small accomplishment.

So, what is my point? My point, as you may guess from the rest of this book, is that the way to begin sorting through the starkly different beliefs that American citizens hold about desirable political ends is to create safe and welcoming spaces to talk respectfully to one another about our disagreements, with the hope that this arduous process will uncover some common ground. This utopian dream of mine certainly precludes the apparently automatic way which Donald Trump immediately vilifies those who disagree with him, and keeps alive my hope that the respectful way in which Joe Biden engages those who disagree with him will lead to a promising future for American democracy.

This concludes my major reasons for applauding the election of Joe Biden as our next President. But before proceeding with a possible cogent objection to what I have just said, I need to present two additional reasons for my being pleased with the election of Joe Biden that focus on what I believe indisputable evidence suggests are two major flaws in both the character and presidential performance of Donald Trump that stand in stark contrast with Joe Biden.[2]

First, I believe that President Trump has exhibited extreme incompetence in his exercise of presidential duties, especially in his handling of the caronavirus pandemic.

There is irrefutable evidence, in his own words to Bob Woodward, that President Trump was aware of the seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic shortly after it entered America and he chose to downplay the threat rather than to vigorously address it. The result of such incompetence has been a staggering number of deaths; a significant percentage of which could have been avoided had Trump taken appropriate action recommended by public health officials to contain the spread of the virus

Secondly, I believe that President Trump has exhibited a major character flaw in his inability to be truthful. On a personal level, I find this character flaw to be particularly troublesome because  the primary value that has motivated my work over many years as a Christian educator has been the quest for truth.

The documented lies that Trump has told are legion. The most egregious recent lie has been his assertion that the virus is “disappearing” at a time when all the evidence points to a staggering increase in the number of hospitalizations and deaths ss the winter months approach. The magnitude and destructiveness of this lie are astonishing.

Of course, the question remains as to whether President Biden will do better relative to these two problems with the Trump presidency. I am optimistic for two reasons. Despite an occasional gaffe or two in his public statements, Biden is committed to telling the truth and when he discovers that he is wrong.in his understanding of that truth, he, unlike Trump, is willing to admit his error and adjust accordingly.

Relative to competence, I perceive a major contrast. Donald Trump has suggested that he “knows  everything about everything” (my paraphrase of his exact words) and, therefore, the legislative branch of government should just do what he thinks needs to be done. In stark contrast, Joe Biden gives evidence of commitment to the collaborative form of leadership that I believe is the most effective leadership (see chapter 5), characterized by a willingness to learn from others and work together with others in a way that leads to sone common ground that reflects the best insights and gifts of everyone.

A Major Objection: The Political Ends that President Trump has Accomplished Comport with Christian Values

As already noted, the Trump supporters in my Trump conversation agreed that the way in which President Trump vilifies those who disagree with him is antithetical to Christian beliefs. Yet they support him. Why? Because they believe that what he has accomplished is consistent with Christian beliefs and priority must be given to those accomplishments.

Using the distinction between means and ends, the argument of these Christian supporters of Trump is essentially that the means that Trump has used, even if antithetical to the Christian faith, can be justified because of the good ends, from a Christian perspective, that these means have accomplished. This presents a major objection to my claim, above, that the unchristian  manner in which Trump vilifies those who disagree with him (one aspect of his chosen political means) disqualifies supporting him, however much one may argue that ends that he has accomplished are good in light of Christian values.

To make this more concrete, introducing the distinction between “good” and “evil.” consider the argument that these Trump supporters make relative to “abortion on demand.” They consider abortion on demand to be an evil that must be overcome. And overcoming this evil must take priority even if the means for doing so requires using another form of evil; the vilifying of political opponents.

Of course, this then raise the crucial prior question of whether a good end (from a Christian perspective) ever justifies an evil means (from a Christian perspective). The answer I find in Scriptures is “no.”

Consider Romans 12:21: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (emphasis mine). This exhortation seems totally unrealistic; even outrageous. But that is what this passage of scripture teaches.

I can anticipate the following response to this biblical teaching: Trying to overcome the evil in America by “doing good” will not work. We Christians must protect Christianity in America from evil by whatever means we think will work.

My response to this response centers on the words “protect Christianity.” Are you saying “God needs Donald Trump to protect Christianity in America?” May I be so bold as to suggest that if you say that phrase to yourself over and over again, you will eventually see how ludicrous it is. Is your God so small that God must resort to using Donald Trump to protect Christianity in America?

Another way to look at this response of mine is to return to a meddlesome section in chapter 5 where I call into question the tendency of many Christians to seek “’power” within American culture. Christians who seek such “power” must give serious consideration to the response that Jesus gave to the temptation the devil presented to him in the wilderness, as recorded in Matthew 4: 8-10.

…The devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, “all these I will give to you if you will fall down and worship me. Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan, for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and only him shall you serve’.”

Jesus rejected an amazing offer of “power,” opting for a different kind of power, the “power of love.”

America After Donald Trump

It is the “power of love” that animates my hope for the future of America after Donald Trump

I see glimpses of the power of love in the self-giving service to others in dire need provided in response to the coronavirus pandemic: The services of front-line doctors and nurses, often provided at great personal risk; The services of first-responders, like EMT workers and fire fighters; the services of essential workers, like those driving delivery  trucks and stocking the shelves of grocery stores; and the numerous little acts of kindness, like singing to neighbors from balconies and holding signs expressing love to those behind closed windows in nursing homes.

But it is difficult to detect examples of the power of love in the hyper-partisan polarized world of American politics. The vilification of political opponents perpetuated by President Trump and his loyalists in the executive branch of government is the opposite of love. And while I applaud the first stimulus package approved by the legislative branch, the failure to find common ground across the aisle for a second stimulus package is tragic..

How should Christians respond to this current brokenness in American politics? As I proposed in chapter 4, three responses are possible: domination, withdrawal and conversation. Recall my  rejection of the domination strategy since our Founding Fathers had the wisdom to establish a form of governance where proponents of diverse worldview beliefs, religious or secular, have an equal voice in legislating the laws of the land.

I must acknowledge that the current hyper-partisan, polarized, dysfunctional nature of current American politics makes “withdrawal” from politics a tempting option for Christians and all other American citizens. But I reject this option for Christians because of my deep conviction that God wishes to redeem all dimensions of life here on earth, including the apparently irredeemable realm of politics.

This leaves me the with the “conversation” model for doing politics that I proposed in chapter 4. Recall that the basis for my proposing this model is my commitment to a number of Christian values: Love is foremost, but these Christian values also include humility, courage, respect, truth, justice, patience and hope. And my proposal for political discourse in the political realm included the following three exhortations:

 

• Develop personal relationships of mutual understanding and trust with those with whom you have political disagreements.
• Listen carefully to those who disagree with you about political issues (as a deep expression of love) and, when you adequately understand their reasons for their positions, engage them in respectful conversation about your agreements and disagreements toward the goal of finding some common ground and illuminating remaining disagreements.
• Reach across the political aisle or dining room table to seek both/and positions that reflect the best insights of those on both sides of the aisle or table.

 

 

A common theme in these three exhortations is the need for bipartisanship in doing politics. That focus has been at the forefront of my personal political endeavors since 2008. And, As you will soon see, it is the centerpiece of my vision for a political future for America after Donald Trump.

It was in the summer of 2008 that I agreed to serve as a local Precinct Captain for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama.[3] I assumed this responsibility because of Obama’s stated commitment to take a bipartisan approach to doing politics.

How well did Obama live up to his promise of a bipartisan approach to doing politics? The results were mixed. My perception is the main reason for these mixed results was the intransigence of a highly polarized and hyper-partisan Congress.[4]

Despite the mixed results of President Obama’s attempts to be bipartisan, my hope for the political future of America is that President Biden will experience some significant success at bipartisanship, remembering that genuine bipartisanship must seek to unite the entire country, not just the Democratic party. Therefore, the monumental task facing President Biden includes his BOTH listening to and learning from the best insights of those Democrats who are “left” of him on the political spectrum (e.g., Bernie Sanders) AND those Democrats and Republicans who are “right” of him on that spectrum.

But Biden can’t make bipartisanship in politics happen all by himself. He made this abundantly clear in his President-Elect acceptance speech on November 7. In stark contrast to the “I” talk  that permeated President Trump’s pronouncements over the past four years, Biden focused on “We” talk: “We have to do this together” – a clarion call for bipartisanship in politics.

But is there a Christian basis for promoting bipartisanship? Absolutely! Here is where a Christian vision stands in stark contrast to the hyper-individualism that is so prominent in American culture. When the Apostle Paul calls on Christians to emulate Jesus, as recorded in Philippians 2:4, he says “Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.” That is “We” talk, not ”I” talk.

Since President Trump has sown fears, divisions and animosities that feed on “I” talk and will not be easily healed, my dream of bipartisanship seems like utopian wishful thinking; an ideal that is beyond the real world of polarized American politics. It would surely be a remarkable exemplification of the “power of love,” I can only envision it happening through the eyes of faith.

---

[1] It is ironic and tragic that President Trump did not exercise his dictatorial tendencies when he should have right after the coronavirus arrived in America. He should have made use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to mandate the production of needed medical supplies (e.g., Personal Protective Equipment (PDEs) and Incubators) and he should have issued a national mandate for the use of scientifically proven means for minimizing the spread of covid-19 (e.g., the wearing of face masks and the practice of social distancing).

[2] For reflections from 30 evangelical Christians on the presidency Of Donald Trump, see Sider. Spiritual Danger.

[3] A major portion of my responsibilities as a local Precinct Captain was to canvas local neighborhoods, knocking on doors to advocate for candidate Obama. I did that for about 3-4 hours each Saturday for about 8 weeks. Being an introvert by nature, I didn’t look forward to these Saturdays. But, in general, I was pleasantly surprised by what happened.  Most notably, I discovered that a number of residents of Sioux County who invited me into their homes were polite and open to listening to my pitch for Obama (some of them even confessed to being “closet” supporters of Obama – feeling the need to “stay in  the closet” – before I talked with them – because of the ultra-conservative nature of Sioux County – a county that was reported at the time to be the second most politically conservative county in America; with first place going to some county in Texas). The one exception to this generally good canvasing experience came when a resident of Rock Valley ran me off his lawn. Fortunately, I could run faster than him.

 

[4] One example of such intransigence was the failure of Congress to take legislative action relative to the status of those DACA recipients known as “Dreamers, which led Obama to take a much disputed “Executive Action” to allow undocumented immigrants who came to America as Children to stay.

This Musing was published as a Letter to the Editor in the August 13, 2020 issue of the Sioux County Capital Democrat. 

I am writing to express strong disagreement with the assertion by Bonnie Reinders that the Democratic party “calls riots peaceful protests” and “justifies vandalism and violence in our cities.”

Bonnie fails to acknowledge a clear and indisputable distinction between two groups of people who have been out on the streets, in Portland and numerous other cities in America, including Orange City, where about 400 local residents participated in a peaceful Partnership for Justice march.

To be sure, a small minority of protestors, representing unacceptable extremes on both the political right and political left, have been vandals. Those in Portland who have damaged a Federal building have clearly broken the law and should be held accountable. I agree completely with President Trump that they should be punished in accordance with the laws of the land.

But what saddens me is that President Trump has ignored the central issue raised by the vast majority of those out on the streets; those who are nor breaking any laws, but are exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly to peacefully protest the prominence of racial discrimination and racial inequalities in America; persistent problems rooted in America’s original sin of slavery.

President Trump’s silence on this pressing question is deafening. How does one explain such silence? John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, presents one response to this question in his book The Room Where It Happened, when he says that he is “hard pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my [Bolton’s] tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations” (485).

President Trump is building his hopes for re-election on sowing division between the races (and elsewhere) that feeds on fear and resentment rather than building the unity that is needed if America is ever to become a truly multi-racial democracy.

So, I, a registered Democrat, do not call riots peaceful protests and I do not justify vandalism and violence in our cities. But, based on my understanding of the Christian values of love for neighbor and justice, I do embrace the need for racial equality and I applaud all those who peacefully gather to promote this noble end. It is my hope that the fact that President Trump has done nothing to foster that desirable goal, but has stood in its way every chance that he gets, will be a decisive factor for citizens on both sides of the political aisle when they vote before or after November 3.

Note carefully that I am not basing my support of the quest for racial equality on the platforms of either major political party. My starting point when considering public policy issues is not what my political party says. Rather, I dig down deep to my understanding of the Christian values to which I am committed, which include love for neighbor and justice.