Dear Joe…. Thank you for your service. It is time to step aside.

Dear Joe,

First of all, thank you for your service in public office, as a Senator for 36 years, as Vice-President under Obama, and now as President. You have served well and have a strong legacy. Even when they disagree with you, in their heart of hearts, even your critics acknowledge your concern for the most vulnerable in our society. Your wisdom in international challenges has been welcomed and appreciated. You have stabilized our economy with growth and job creation, and you have lowered inflation.

Nevertheless, I think it is time for you to step aside and give the next generation their opportunity. The main reason is not your diminishing physical ability and mental acuity. (That happens to many of us.) I believe you would serve well if you had four more years in the White House. The problem is that so much attention is given to your occasional verbal gaffes, that the unethical character and flawed actions of ex-President Trump receive little attention. For example, in the “Debate”, Trump told more than 30 serious lies, but these are hardly mentioned.

I believe that Trump is very dangerous for our country (he is a convicted felon who is guilty of sexual assault, trying to steal the 2020 election, invoking a riot in our Capitol, and supporting autocrats around the world, including Putin in his invasion and war against Ukraine. The most consistent aspect of his character are his lies.) In “normal” courts he would become convicted again and again, but due to the actions of the stacked Supreme Court, Trump will not be tried again before the election. The best scenario for the country is that Trump loses the election in November. Joe, you are no longer the best candidate to beat Trump. Other Democrats (Whitmer, Harris, Newsome, and others) are now better prepared. For the good of our country and the world, step aside.

I Really Want To Respect The Supreme Court…, But Its Conduct Makes It Difficult

Healthy societies have institutions (schools, local, state, and federal governments, the police, legal courts, news sources, etc.) that are generally respected by the majority of the population. I strive to respect these institutions in the United States, but this does not mean institutions get a free pass. I take their actions and affirmations seriously because we humans, individually and collectively, are responsible for our words and deeds. Our Supreme Court does not have the approval nor respect of our citizens. Polls consistently show that less than 40% of Americans approve of the Supreme Court. Part of the problem is due to its rulings, but there are other issues of “process” that have led to this low respect. I will address the content of unsatisfactory rulings in future blog postings, but I will briefly point out two problematic processes.

In early 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Leading Republican senators (McConnell, Graham, et al) refused to even bring the nomination to the Senate. They argued that nominees should not be approved by the Senate during a presidential election year. In October 2020, Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court even though early voting had already begun in some states! Instead of being consistent with their 2016 policy, Republican leaders brought her nomination to the Senate. This was blatant hypocrisy! Instead of denouncing this hypocrisy, many “pro-lifers” applauded it. They appealed to the unethical maxim of the “end justifies the means” (conservative justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade). I am disillusioned with leaders like McConnell and Graham who pushed through this nomination out of season, but also with those “Christians” who supported this double standard.
Over a period of twenty years, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received millions of dollars in gifts from conservative billionaire Harlan Crow. He was required to report these gifts on governmental financial disclosure forms, but he did not do so. Although every other court in the United States has a Code of Conduct which specifies actions that are permitted or prohibited for their justices, the Supreme Court has no such Code and has repeatedly refused to implement such a code.

Although we affirm that “no one is above the law”, these two examples show how some SCOTUS Justices have demonstrated they are not subject to the norms of everyday citizens. In upcoming posts, I will analyze how Monday’s ruling on Trump’s claim of “total immunity” is extremely dangerous for our country.

Cognitive Dissonance and our Political Polarization

Back in the 1950s, Leon Festinger popularized the psychological theory of “cognitive dissonance”. This dissonance occurs when people experience two or more values, beliefs, practices, factual evidence, choices, etc. that are in conflict with each other. This often produces stress. Humans frequently strive to reduce this stress by “maximizing/minimizing” or “re-interpreting” one of these factors to bring it into consonance with the others.

This cognitive dissonance can easily be observed in our political polarization. On Thursday evening there will be a televised debate between Biden and Trump. The debate has not yet occurred. The candidates might perform poorly or well. They might make mental gaffes or perhaps they might be clear and insightful. Even though the debate has not yet happened, our minds are hard at work and we “know” which candidate “won” the debate. Trump’s supporters will claim that he won the debate and explain away any defect. Those who support Biden will do likewise. The truths spoken in the debate get lost in the shuffle, because “my preferred candidate is obviously the better public servant and must have won the debate. My favorite news source (Fox, MSNBC, etc.) agrees with me, so, it is clear that my candidate won.”

Another example is the role of chanting at political rallies. It is common for MAGA supporters to chant “Build the wall! Build the wall!” as the solution to the immigration crisis. The fact that most people at the rally are chanting the same slogan gives the impression that a wall must be the right answer. Nevertheless, it drowns out the dissonance of the weak points of the argument. Trump had four years to build the wall, but he did not do it. In addition, a wall might slow the flow of immigrants, but it would not stop the drug traffic. The drug trade is so lucrative that “better” methods will be used: boats, airplanes, drones, tunnels, and the border with Canada.

On the other side of the political divide are the pro-choice advocates who chant “My body, my choice! My body, my choice!” There is some truth in the chant, but here again, the chanted slogan drowns out the weakness of their position. At some point in the pregnancy, the fetus acquires some human rights. Pro-choice advocates are quite reticent about assigning a point in time for these rights, but Roe stated that it was at the beginning of the third trimester.

Our society is in trouble. The third of the population on “my side” thinks the third on the “other side” are crazy and bereft of any moral compass. Many have therefore resolved, “I won’t listen to my opponents. I will choose only those news sources and friends that agree with me.” Such a life is not worth living, because in such a world, big and small truths get drowned out.

Is there a way out of this morass? There is, but it is a road infrequently traveled. It means respecting the essential humanity of my opponent and accepting as much of her/his arguments as my conscience and integrity permit. It means accurately describing their positions and not distorting them. Are we up to the challenge? I have a deep hope in God, and a flicker of hope for all humanity because we are all created in God’s image.

“Christian Nationalism” is not Christian

Christian Nationalism is the belief that a certain variety of Christianity should rule over a nation, usually by imposition. This nationalism is a misguided objective of some “followers of Jesus” and by questionable politicians who try to take advantage of people’s religiosity.

The New Testament does NOT teach that faith in Jesus should be imposed upon a society. The Gospel is the Good News that people can be forgiven by God’s grace and become reconciled with the Lord and with others. God invites people to respond in faith and respects their freedom and responsibility. Followers of Jesus are called to contribute to the wellbeing of their society as salt and light. In modern democracies, this means persuasion, voting, (even paying taxes), and in myriads of other ways, but not via imposition (even if it is well-intentioned). The New Testament urges government officials to practice commonly accepted forms of justice (fair treatment of citizens, no bribes).

In the long history of Christianity, there are many examples of attempts to create “Christian nations” which have been disastrous. Let’s begin with Constantine and his mythical “conversion” before the important battle at the Milvian Bridge. He supposedly saw a cross in the sky and the words “with this cross you will conquer”. During his reign (AD 306-337) Christianity was transformed from a persecuted religion into a tolerated one, then into a preferred one, and then into the religion of the empire. Freedom of religion was, in effect, abolished. Equally bad, Christianity was wedded with the goals of the empire: violently warring against their neighbors with the “blessing of God”. Christians’ faithful commitment to pacifism gave way to a sinful killing of humans made in God’s image.

We can see a continuation of the tragic idea of a “Christian nation” in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition did not permit religious freedom. It imposed Christian doctrines upon its citizens and forced Jews to convert. Christianity was also used by Spain as a major rationale for the horrendous conquest of the indigenous populations of the Americas.

To a greater or lesser degree, Protestant churches in Europe (Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans) practiced a church/state alliance that greatly reduced religious freedom in many countries. This led to the emergence of Anabaptists, Mennonites, and a variety of “free” churches that yearned to practice their faith according to their conscience.

The USA did not develop a state church, but there have been attempts to have religious/ethical prescriptions imposed on its citizens. Some of these (like declaring Christmas to be a national holiday) are not coercive and have broad approval. The prohibition against murder and perjury have been upheld by the states and the federal government. “Blue Laws” and “Dry Counties” have some roots in religion and/or religious ethics. They used to be quite common across broad swaths of the United States but have generally been voted into obsolescence.

Some have argued that the United States was a Christian Nation in its founding. Although many of the colonists were devout Christians, most advocated for religious freedom. Other founders (like Thomas Jefferson) were Deists who did not believe in Christian Nationalism. For those who claim the United States was a Christian Nation, I urge them to get on their knees and confess our national sins: the devastation of indigenous people, the enslavement of Africans, and the most unjust, “imperialist war” against Mexico in 1846 (Lincoln’s words, not mine).

I strive to follow Jesus and I frequently fail. It is right for me to contribute to our national conscience through persuasion, an honest use of the evidence, and elections. It is not right for me to try to impose my convictions upon others. Let us seek the truth and let it set us free.

“Illegal”: From Linguistics to Divine Ethics

There is an ongoing debate about the use of the word “illegal”. For most of its five-century history, the word has been used as an adjective to describe actions that violate a law. Only more recently has the term been used to refer to people, usually immigrants who supposedly do not have the necessary documents to be in a country and usually with a derogatory connotation.

I suggest that the word “illegal” only be used as an adjective to describe actions. This would bring clarity to our discussions. The reason should be obvious. I (and most people who read my blog) have driven over the speed limit. Such action is illegal because it violates the law. Those who commit such violations should be fined (or at least warned). But driving over the speed limit does not make me an “illegal”. Actions can be illegal, people are not.

There is a much more important reason. According to most religions and philosophies, every human has immense value. The three largest monotheistic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) agree that people are valuable because each person is made in God’s image. This is abundantly clear in Christianity, my chosen faith. Jesus taught that every action directed towards another person was, in reality, an action directed towards God. (Matthew 25:31-46) We wouldn’t dare call God an ”illegal”, so why do we use that word to put down people created by a loving God’s? Those who claim to be followers of Jesus should be “pro-life” in the truest sense, by cherishing every human being as “wondrously made” in God’s image.

There’s another reason why I don’t use “illegal” to refer to immigrants. I (and many of my readers) have some ancestors who immigrated to North America hundreds of years ago. Most became settlers, but they usually did not get permission (or something comparable) from the indigenous people who were stewarding this land. Immigration is a two-edged sword which frequently reveals our own hypocrisy. If we don’t want to be descendants and heirs of “illegals”, we should use the word more appropriately.

The Judge’s ruling ironically favors both Willis and Trump

Judge Scott McAfee issued his decision this morning about the Georgia trial regarding former president Trump’s election interference. On the one hand, the judge decided that the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis can continue on the case in spite of her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor. Ironically, his ruling favors both Willis and Trump, but is a setback for the American people.

The good news for Willis is that she can continue her legal career, although the judge criticized her for using poor judgment.

The good news for Trump is that his lawyers now have more fodder to delay this and the other trials until after the November election. Trump knows that a significant number of citizens would not vote for him if he were convicted of a felony. It should be obvious to all that his strategy is to stall, stall, stall. If he could just stall until the election, and if he would win, he could make all the trials disappear. Even if he were guilty, he would be “above the law”.

I am disappointed by everyone who favors this stalling tactic. Our citizens deserve to know whether Trump is found to be “guilty” or “not guilty” by a jury of his peers… before the election. In our country, nobody is supposed to be above the law, not even a president. Stalling is an attempt to distort justice.

The trial is to decide whether Trump tried to steal the 2020 election in Georgia. He officially lost the election in Georgia by 11,779 votes. We have a recording of the phone call from Trump to the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a conservative Republican) on January 2, 2021. I suggest listening to the entire conversation, but here are the pertinent quotes:

Raffensperger – “Well Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong…. We believe that we do have an accurate election.”

Trump – “Look Brad. I got to get … I have to find 12,000 votes.”

Most objective people who listen to the tape acknowledge that the former president attempted to steal the election. Listen to his own words… and you be judge.

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Elderly Men and Mental Gaffes: Biden, Trump… and Scott

Getting older! It happens to all of us. Although increased wisdom can come with added years, many of us also experience a decline in our physical and mental abilities. It can be difficult to contemplate intentionally reducing our public activities due to this decline.

This is the situation before us in our national political situation. A week ago, special counsel Robert Hur issued his report in which he concluded that President Joe Biden was not guilty of any criminal activity in his handling of sensitive government documents. Nevertheless, he also wrote that Biden was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory”. Biden’s mental gaffes are well-known. In his attempt to refute the poor memory accusation, he gave a talk in which he confused the leaders of Egypt and Mexico.

On the other hand, former President Donald Trump has also committed his share of memory gaffes. The most recent was a campaign speech in which he confused Republican Nikki Haley with Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi. Both men are of advanced age and make many mental mistakes. So do I. Although I am not as old as Biden and Trump, I am not far behind. I show the wear and tear of my years in my body and in my mind.

Should Biden or Trump drop out of the race for the presidency at this late date? Is there a precedent? Yes, there is. Back in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson dropped out of his race for re-election in March. I personally believe that the two main political parties (and therefore, the nation itself) would be better off, if Trump or Biden (or both) would drop out. Age and mental acuity are not the only issues. Biden’s handling of the border crisis has not been great (although Republican representatives in Congress are also at fault). Trump’s legal problems are even worse. He has already been found guilty of sexual assault/rape and financial fraud. If the other trials take place this year, he will likely be convicted of other, serious crimes.

Who do I suggest take the place of these men? Although I disagree with some of her policy proposals, Nikki Haley would do a far, far better job as president than Trump. In my opinion, he is morally repugnant, at all levels. On the Democrat side, among the many potential candidates, I would like to see Michelle Obama. She is smart, and of even more importance, very wise due to her life experiences. In addition, her life partner would make a great first “First Gentleman”.

Why do White Evangelicals prefer Trump when they have Better Options?

Why do White Evangelicals Prefer Trump when they Have Better Options?

In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, approximately 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump. Since then, they have remained some of Trump’s strongest supporters. This is somewhat strange, because his life runs contrary to evangelicals’ most cherished virtues. This must be unpacked a bit. Evangelicals are a subsection of Protestant Christianity which claim that their lives are guided by Biblical principles. Although this is somewhat true at an individual level (honest, hard-working, dedicated to their family, etc.), this is not accurate at a political level. Numerous surveys reveal that fewer than 15% of evangelicals have their political positions shaped by Scripture on important issues of our day (immigration, foreign policy, environment, health care, etc.). Their most important political concern has been to reduce the number of abortions taking place. Since Reagan, Republican presidential candidates have promised to re-shape the Supreme Court with enough conservative justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. During his presidency, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Court, and as a result, Roe was overturned, and the legal status of abortion has been returned to the states.

Although Trump lost the 2020 election, he is running again and is way ahead of his Republican rivals: Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy. My question for white evangelicals is the following: Why do you continue to support Trump when his lifestyle runs contrary to core Christian values and you have better options? Here is a small sample of his character flaws.

Trump is a racist. He began his campaign in 2015 by declaring that Mexicans were drug pushers, criminals, and rapists. In 2018 he called African countries, plus Haiti and El Salvador “shithole” countries.
Trump is a womanizer and treats women as objects. In his Access Hollywood tape, Trump affirmed “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
He is a bully. In his rallies, he demeans others based on their physical handicaps, their looks, etc. instead of using reasonable, logical arguments.
He is a compulsive liar. On the day of his inauguration, he lied about the size of the crowd, then told hundreds of significant lies during his presidency, including the allegation that he won the 2020 election. You can google “Trump and lies” for a long list with evidence.
He is narcissistic. His demands for “loyalty” required people to violate the Constitution and their conscience. For those who violated their religious convictions, they have brought shame and disrepute to their faith.
His vanity has led him to make false predictions. He predicted that under his leadership, Republicans would win so many elections, they would “get tired of winning”. That turned out to be false. Republicans lost the 2018 midterm election, the 2020 presidential election, and the special election in Georgia. They underperformed in 2022. Republicans are, in fact, tired of losing with Trump.
His many crimes have led him to be charged with 91 counts in federal courts. It is likely that he will be found guilty of some felonies by the time of the election in November, 2024.

I know people who refuse to acknowledge any of these defects. This was understandable during the heat of the 2016 and 2020 elections, but is totally unreasonable today. There are better options: Haley, DeSantis, and Christie. They are fallen human beings (just like me). They have their own defects (just like me). They probably have skeletons in their closets (just like me). I have significant disagreements with each of them and some of their policies. Nevertheless, they all have been governors and have experience in constitutional positions of leadership. Each of them has a basic minimum integrity as public servants. Each of them would be a better option than Trump.

For further reading, I suggest the new book by Tim Alberta: The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory. American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism.

I Agree with Donald Trump (regarding his earlier position on the Fifth Amendment)

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution contains several rights, including the right to “remain silent” in court and not provide evidence that is “self-incriminating”. Its original intent was to limit the government’s power to coerce people to make false confessions of guilt. The common use today of “taking the Fifth” or “pleading the Fifth” is that guilty persons can remain silent and not provide answers that would incriminate them.

I have always had problems about people who “take the Fifth”. If they are truly innocent, what is the problem in answering questions with truthful answers? In other words, only people who are guilty use this amendment, and they do so with the hope of evading or postponing the truth about their guilt. The truth usually wins out. Guilty actions eventually come into the light and appropriate punishment is meted out.

Back in 2016 when Donald Trump was running for president, he pronounced his opinion about those who take the Fifth. At a rally in Iowa, he criticized some of Hillary Clinton’s staff who had utilized the amendment to remain silent: “Her staffers taking the Fifth Amendment, how about that? You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” During a presidential debate, Trump affirmed that “taking the Fifth” was “disgraceful”. I agree with Trump. When people are innocent, they should answer court questions and answer with the truth.

On Wednesday of this week, Trump appeared in a deposition with the New York Attorney General who is leading a civil investigation of the Trump organization’s finances. It is alleged that the organization overestimated the value of the company’s assets in order to obtain loans at low interest rates. At the same time, it seems that the company underestimated the value of those same assets in order to pay lower taxes. Two of Trump’s children (Ivanka and Don, Jr., who hold positions of leadership in the organization) appeared in depositions recently and gave answers to the questions. Nevertheless, former president Trump “pled the Fifth” over 440 times on Wednesday and refused to answer simple questions regarding the company’s financial assets. More than 440 times! Clear answers could have proved his innocence if that were the true situation. The refusal to answer legitimate question, at the very least, gives the impression of guilt.

Noted legal scholar, Alan Dershowitz, who served as attorney for Trump, yesterday told reporters that he was shocked upon hearing that the former president used the Fifth Amendment 440 times if he has “nothing to hide”.

Given that there exist financial documents from the Trump organization, its innocence or guilt will soon come to light. A Scriptural maxim is that “we will be judged by our own words”. Consistency between our words and our deeds is important for our ethical integrity. I agree with Trump’s words six years ago regarding the Fifth Amendment, and therefore, and based upon his own words, I do not approve of his refusal to answer the deposition questions on Wednesday.

Idolatry and Politics

The current political situation in the United States is quite troubling and sad. This can be illustrated by looking at an identifiable group on each side of the political spectrum. On the “right” are the “always Trumpers”. They repeat the White House’s talking points on every issue. A clear example is the current spike in the Covid-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths. President Trump has downplayed the severity of the pandemic. He has repeatedly claimed that the high numbers are due to the greater number of tests the United States has administered and that the U.S. has a low Covid-19 rate. The “always Trumpers” have echoed these claims even though they are absolutely false. On a per capita basis, the U.S. has NOT administered more coronavirus tests than most European countries, and the European Covid-19 rate is much less that the rate in the US. In fact, the U.S. has the fourth worst per capita rate in the world. In their desire to support the president, the “always Trumpers” are in denial of reality.

On the other side of the political spectrum are the “never Trumpers”. For them, Trump is so detestable that everythihng he says or does is false and evil. They have such a knee jerk reaction to Trump that they must be against everything Trumpian. For example, Trump has pushed a ¨Warp Speed¨ vaccine for Covid-19 for rapid research and actual production of millions of vaccines. Although it is obvious that Trump is urging this project largely for election purposes, the ¨never Trumpers¨ are unwilling to acknowledge that moving swiftly toward the development and distribution of a safe vaccines is good and necessary.

If people are totally “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump”, they have abandoned their use of logic and reason. Their absolute political loyalty distorts the use of their minds. From a Biblical point of view, an absolute commitment to any human or institution is idolatry because we are worshiping the creation and not the Creator.

Unless people want to be classified as “pro-Trumpers” or “anti-Trumpers”, it is easy but not helpful to put our “opponents” in one of these categories. It is easy because we can then dismiss any evidence they offer without examining it. Because too many of us categorize others in this way, we are becoming ever more polarized. When our favorite political party or politician receives a criticism, our default mode becomes a defensive posture. Instead of seeking and acknowledging the points of truth in the criticism, we grasp for any argument that helps our position, no matter how flimsy.

Since both of these extremes are dangerous for the advance of truth in our world, I suggest the following. Identify the three strongest criticisms against your favorite politician or political party. Are there any grains of truth in these criticisms? If so, do we acknowledge and act on them? If not, we are treading on dangerous ground.

Let´s keep seeking the truth and it will set us free.