Tag: Politics

4 Political Hot Takes in the Wake of Coronavirus

Here are a few quick things I’ve been thinking about from a political science perspective in the wake of coronavirus. (I also have a host of other thoughts from a religious perspective, a mental health perspective, and my personal perspective; those aren’t included here. If you’re curious for my thoughts from those angles, let me know!).

1. We’ve proven the skeptics somewhat wrong about American capitalism

For a while now, it’s become a truism in certain circles that, when it comes down to it, capitalist America cares more about money than saving people’s lives. There’s a host of evidence one could point to (on both sides of the political aisle) to show that that’s true. Lack of funding for veterans, lack of universal healthcare, lack of funding to fight the opioid epidemic, lack of regulations to prohibit pollution (like cancer-causing chemicals in the water supply), support for abortion even up to the point of birth… I could go on and on. In general it does feel like American culture cares more about financial convenience than in protecting human life.

But then came coronavirus. All of a sudden, millions and millions of people, led by leaders from all across the political spectrum (some sooner than others), banded together to stop almost all economic activity purely for the sake of saving human lives. Think about it: we’ve essentially decided to put our economy into a recession–indefinitely– to save the lives of thousands of people (primarily older people who no longer contribute much to the economy). Thus, I would argue that we have at least partially proven the skeptics wrong about American capitalism: it’s not true that there is an unconditional value for money over human life, and our society’s overall response to the pandemic so far bears witness to that fact.

2. I honestly feel bad for Donald Trump

Most political scientists I was hearing from were fairly certain a couple months ago that Donald Trump was on track to be re-elected: he was an incumbent President, with a strong economy, incredibly popular ratings among Republicans, had overcome impeachment hearings, and had an electoral map skewed in his favor. Historically speaking, he was virtually guaranteed to be re-elected. A few months ago, these political scientists would say that the only thing that could keep him from being re-elected would be if the economy massively crashed, or if Donald Trump did something very unpopular.

Then came coronavirus. Coronavirus is something that, no matter who the president was right now, would have crashed the economy and forced it into a recession. Not only that, but Trump’s usual tactics of Twitter sniping, backroom agreements, and Fox News bullying don’t work on a virus, which cannot be cowed or threatened by those strategies. Moreover, even if he didn’t want to, Trump has to pay attention to the coronavirus pandemic, which threatens the economy and preys disproportionately on the elderly, a demographic that tends to vote for Trump by substantial margins. He could no more ignore coronavirus than he could ignore American farmers targeted by Chinese tariffs last year.

All this to say, Donald Trump is trapped in a truly unenviable position right now: he will be forced to work incredibly hard to unleash a host of unpopular measures to contain a problem that he didn’t cause, knowing full well that it will all pretty much be for naught when the election comes. Worst of all, his personal businesses (real estate, tourism, Mar-a-Lago, etc.) have also been hit hard by coronavirus, so he won’t even have a profitable business to retire to next year. This is not the type of thing Donald Trump became president for, but now here he is. I kind of feel bad for him.

3. Everyone’s a deficit-spending socialist right now.

      This point has been stated by others, but it’s still worth noting: all our politicians, whether they are on the right or the left, are advocating for full-blown, deficit-spending government handouts right now. Whether it’s bailouts for tourism and food industries, $1,200 checks mailed to every adult American, or massive amounts of government spending to provide free healthcare and coronavirus testing for sick people, it feels like no one cares about the deficit anymore. I’m old enough to remember when Trump’s tax cuts added $1.5 trillion to the federal debt (while boosting the stock market), but now that the stock market has collapsed again we’re talking about adding trillions more just to keep Wall Street from collapsing below its pre-2017 levels! And that’s not to mention the need to take care of everyday Americans, whose consumption habits are crucial to keeping the economy moving forward. I’ve heard it said, and it seems accurate, that “in the same way as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no libertarians in a pandemic.” Everyone in the government is advocating for massive government spending, intrusive regulations, and safety nets to catch newly sick or unemployed workers. As Congress debates a variety of plans, the main sticking point will be whether the government spending ends up helping Americans across the economic spectrum, or whether once again all the benefits will primarily flow to large corporations and the wealthiest 1%. But regardless of how that debate is decided, it’s clear that government deficit spending is the one thing everyone is agreeing on.

covid coronavirus government check democrats not my president republicans socialism
Some bipartisan humor for you 🙂

4. Fake news doesn’t rest in a pandemic

            Fake news stories have been rising in dramatic fashion in recent years, aided by social media outlets that make it easy to “share” posts that people agree with, even if they’re totally false. I can’t tell you the number of posts I see that are blatantly false or misleading, that have only a handful of “likes” or “comments” but DOZENS of shares! Recently, Jim Bakker (a televangelist “prophet” who sells food buckets and thinks Trump is God’s chosen person to usher in the End Times) got in trouble with the FDA for claiming his expensive silver pills can cure coronavirus. But it’s not just Jim Bakker, there are a lot of other fake claims being advanced right now. Here’s one I saw this morning, blaming “sanctuary cities” for coronavirus cases:

Glenn didn’t make this meme, but he did repost it. Only 1 comment, but 14 shares!

Anyone who takes more than 3 seconds to think about the meme can easily see the flaws here. It’s a case of confusing correlation with causation. Of course there are more coronavirus cases in cities, because there are more people who live there. Sanctuary cities in coastal cities also cannot be the cause of coronavirus in Arkansas, Kentucky, and other conservative states. Moreover, if undocumented immigrants in “sanctuary cities” are to blame for coronavirus, then why are there so few cases of the disease in Central and Latin America? It’s obvious that whoever made this meme wants people to think of immigrants as “dirty” and “diseased”, and so they made a meme to make that point with a complete disregard for the actual facts of the matter. Perhaps the meme’s creator was a Russian troll looking to divide us, or a white supremacist, but more likely the maker of this image is just a garden-variety American racist who wants to blame foreigners for their problems. That isn’t the saddest thing; what’s sad to me is how many people (mostly Boomers…sorry gotta say it) uncritically shared this post! Yet that’s where we are nowadays, where so many people are happy to repost lies just to advance their own narrative. I wish I could say I’m surprised, but at this point I’m not. Stay awake, and watch out for other viral lies.

Anyway, those are just a few political hot takes I’ve been thinking about recently–let me know your thoughts!

P.S. BONUS HOT TAKE: It’s been hilarious to me seeing how quickly the same people who were saying “coronavirus is a liberal media hoax” are now the ones agreeing with Donald Trump on its dangers and the need for social distancing. Will anyone who called it a “media hoax” apologize, ask forgiveness, and admit they were wrong? Don’t hold your breath.

A Dialogue in Heaven

[NOTE: The dialogue that follows below is an example of “satire.” Satire often utilizes exaggeration and silly images, and is certainly NOT meant to be taken literally. Rather, satire uses hyperbole and shock to illustrate a point.]

“The Temptation of Christ” by Ary Scheffer, 1854

Setting: Heaven’s Throne Room. God is seated on the throne. Satan enters.

Satan: Hey God, it’s me.

God: Oh really, you again, what have you been up to?

Satan: Prowling around, looking for who I can devour. You know, the usual. But today I wanted to run something by you.

God: Oh really? What’s that?

Satan: I’d like to bring forth another anti-Christ, designed to deceive your people, particularly in the United States.

God: You know my true Church always stands strong in the end; I don’t know why you try all these pointless schemes. But sure, what do you have planned this time?

Satan: Well, I have a person in mind, and I’d like them to run for President. They’ll claim to be the most pro-Christian candidate ever elected. In so doing they’ll lead a majority of American Christians to become utterly confused about right and wrong.

God: Righhht [skeptical]…tell me more about this person.

Satan: Well, without getting too specific, this person is known to be very greedy and proud, and has a tendency to have lots of affairs and touch people inappropriately—despite being married! They’re also known to twist the truth and lie, even over very tiny facts-in other words, they’ll be fluent in speaking my native tongue. Not to mention, this person has a habit of cheating employees out of wages owed to them.

God: Wow—and you think this person can deceive my Church? Well OK, go on.

Satan: They’ll use foul language a lot.

God: Uh-huh.

Satan: And they’ll generally just criticize, insult, and relentlessly harass anyone who doesn’t immediately bow down in support before them. That’s especially true against women, foreigners, and people who aren’t white, but the target can be anyone.

God: Surely they’ll repent and asked for forgiveness for all these sins?

Satan: That’s the thing—the person I have in mind is so stubborn that they will never publicly repent, and will even claim they’ve never even had to ask YOU for forgiveness either!

God: Haha foolish indeed…now tell me about this person’s political priorities.

Satan: Well, this person LOVES hanging out with dictators and cutting backroom deals with them. Particularly those from North Korea, Russia, China, and other places where your people are persecuted. Not only that, but they’ll dramatically limit the number of Christian immigrants and refugees that are allowed to come into the United States.

God: [Scoffs] Hah-no way my people will let that happen. They love their brothers and sisters around the globe! I really doubt your plan will work, but go on.

Satan: This person also will discourage people from stewarding your creation, and instead will reward people who pollute the air, water, and soil.

God: [Shaking head] I’m sure by now my people in America will know better than to let that happen, but sure. Go on.

Satan: The key to my plan is this–I will deceive your people into affiliating so strongly with this person, that many of them will refuse to hear even the smallest criticism. They’ll call true statements about wrongdoing “fake”, and believe any embellishment that makes this person look good. It’ll get to the point, that people will lie about the truth in legal proceedings, even after swearing an oath on a Bible!

God: Look, I’m really struggling to believe you’ll get my entire Church in the US to actually follow this person.

Satan: Well, no, it won’t be everyone. Some will denounce this person, and others will vote for them only reluctantly and half-heartedly. But I figure if I can get a high enough percentage of your people (especially if they’re prominent figures in the Church) to publicly worship, whole-heartedly support, and even lie for this person, it will make you look so bad, that you’ll see a whole generation flat-out rejecting your son Jesus and the Church.

God: Wow. That is ambitious. But OK–you gotta tell me who you have in mind for this plan. This feels too far-fetched, who are you thinking? And which political party?

Satan: I’ll tell you, but I’m keeping it a bit secret right now, so keep it under wraps for now: [Satan whispers the person’s name in a low voice].

God: Hahahahha—You’re kidding right? THAT person?! Running in THAT party?

Satan: It’ll work!

God: No way. But I’ll tell you what. You have my permission to go ahead and try your plan. If my people in the US actually are deceived by this person, then they deserve every last judgment that is coming to them. I’ll let you sift each of them as wheat, to see whether their faith will fail–and if it does, whether or not they will turn back to me.

Satan: Understood. I’ll see you around.

Want fewer abortions? The evidence suggests you should vote Democrat

Today was the annual “March For Life,” the largest pro-life demonstration in the US, hosted in Washington DC on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It’s particularly significant this year because Donald Trump was the first sitting US president to attend in its 47-year history (I won’t dwell on the latent hypocrisy of having Trump speak, who was staunchly pro-choice until recently and is said to have paid for as many as eight of his lovers’ abortions). At the March For Life, all of the pro-life speakers and marchers wish to see fewer abortions, and the vast majority believe that voting for Republicans like Donald Trump are the way to do it.

But what if that’s not the case? What if, despite their pro-choice rhetoric, Democrats actually have the best path to fewer abortions? And what if, despite their pro-life rhetoric, Republican policies lead to an increase in the number of abortions?

New York Times, January 24, 2020

Obama’s Legacy

In 2008, many evangelicals voted for John McCain over Barack Obama, and one of their main stated reasons was that Obama had stated support for overturning the ban against so-called “partial-birth abortions”, a statistically rare but very graphic procedure. During his eight years in office, that issue never actually came up, and the ban stayed in place.

Interestingly enough, despite being “pro-choice,” President Obama actually presided over the largest decrease in abortion the United States has ever seen. By the time Obama left office, abortion rates were at their lowest since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. This was not due to states passing anti-abortion laws: in fact, states that limited abortion, such as Mississippi, saw an increase in the number of abortions. So why did abortions rates fall nationally? The main reason is that Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) increased access to cheap, effective, contraceptives. In barely two years after Obamacare was passed, the rate of unplanned pregnancies had already dropped by 6%.

It’s incredibly simple: when there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, there are fewer abortions.

Because cheap, easy access to contraception prevents unplanned pregnancies from ever happening, it serves as a more effective prevention of abortion (at least as compared to working on the back end to try to ban/convince women from procuring an abortion after they’re already pregnant).

Why the rhetoric doesn’t match reality

If Obama’s policies indeed lowered the abortion rate, why is it that Democrats don’t get any credit among the people at March For Life? Well, it’s a bit complicated. In the early 90s, Bill Clinton pioneered the phrase that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” This promoted the Democrat’s pro-choice platform, while still making room for pro-life advocates. But in 2016, Hillary Clinton’s platform severed the word “rare,” because it seemed to compromise the party’s pro-choice position. In a tight race, the Clinton campaign gambled that it was worth doing this to bolster the enthusiasm of her left flank–but at the ultimate expense of pro-life Democrats and independents.

It feels to me that even a small shift in Democrats’ rhetoric in 2020 could help them capture back pro-life voters who dislike Donald Trump but aren’t enthusiastic about abortion. There are a number of prominent activist groups espousing a “consistent life ethic” who fit in well with the Democratic Party on every other issue–anti-pollution, social welfare, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc…except for abortion. If Democrats would simply argue–”We will defend abortion rights at all costs, but please notice that we are also doing more to decrease the need for abortion in the first place than the Republicans ever would”– that feels to me like a winning argument for them.

Of course, that’s all hypothetical. I’m not sure if any leading Democrats would make that argument in 2020, and certainly not right now in the primaries when they are trying to win over the staunchest liberals.

Decision time

So what’s a pro-life voter to do? Ultimately, I would argue that, despite being counter-intuitive, the evidence suggests that a vote for Republicans is a vote for more abortions, and a vote for Democrats is a vote for fewer abortions. There are three main reasons for this:

  1. Contraception. Republicans hate government-funded healthcare, particularly when it comes to contraception. Since 2016 they have fought tooth and nail to repeal Obamacare and to prevent government funding for contraception. If more Republicans are elected, they will continue make it more costly and difficult to have contraceptives, which will likely lead to more unplanned pregnancies (and thus more abortions). In contrast, if Democrats are elected, they will work for cheaper, more widespread access to contraceptives which will lead to fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions.
  2. Social safety nets. One of the main reasons women choose to have an abortion is socioeconomic–they fear that they will not have the support they need to raise a child: cheap healthcare, fair wages, paid maternity leave, quality schools, etc. In general, Democrats want to increase the amount of assistance that goes to poor people, while Republicans want to cut it off. When there is a stronger safety net for women, it decreases the need for abortion, so if more Democrats are elected in 2020 we will likely see a continued decrease in the abortion rate.
  3. Comprehensive sex education. In recent years, the rate of teen pregnancies has dropped to record lows. The explanations are varied, but one of the key factors is the rise of comprehensive sex education that teaches teenagers about topics like contraception. In general, Republicans are opposed to sex education and prefer abstinence-based approaches (which have lower rates of success), while Democrats wish to see even more sex education.

One of my predictions in 2016 was that if Donald Trump was elected, we would see the number of abortions increase for all the reasons mentioned above. It’s a bit early to tell and the data is complicated, but in general it seems like my prediction has been proven true. Since Donald Trump became president, the number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in the US has increased substantially (despite “pro-life” Donald Trump having control of all 3 branches of government). In addition, Trump’s cuts to foreign aid via have decreased international funding for contraception, leading to an increase in the number of abortions overseas as well.

It’s unfortunate that rhetoric has become so confusing. But the answers seem pretty clear: in the 2020 election, if someone’s #1 priority is seeing fewer abortions, then that person should not vote Republican, they should vote Democrat. It’s counterintuitive, but that’s what the facts suggest.

My Take on Trump’s Impeachment

My Earliest Political Memory

My earliest political memory is a discussion I had with Eggbert, the talking egg. For those of you without the privilege of growing up in New York’s lower Hudson Valley, Eggbert is a royal egg who comes out every holiday season to greet the children (and their parents) who visit Devitt’s Nursery and Supply. Through a camera and speaker cleverly hidden within his throne, Eggbert can talk to the children, ask what they want for Christmas, and even tell jokes. No Christmas tree is complete without an ornament of Eggbert hanging from one of the prominent branches, and now you can purchase cans of Angry Eggbert IPAs from the local Newburgh Brewing Co. Suffice to say, Eggbert is basically a celebrity.

Children talking to Eggbert (Courtesy of Devitt’s Nursery & Supply)

So that’s why, in December of 1998, I proudly walked up to Eggbert and asked him, “Eggbert, what do you think of the ‘Clinton crisis?'” You see, while I had just turned 8, I was already interested in politics, and I had absorbed some of the key details of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. I didn’t know what sex was, but I definitely knew what lying was. Whether from my evangelical church, my Christian school, or my parents, it sounded like President Clinton’s actions were really, really bad, and I was transfixed by the idea that he might be removed from office.

I lament to say that I can’t remember Eggbert’s reply to my earnest question. But the moment stuck with me, and I’ve continued to be fascinated by politics ever since.

Evangelicals’ Rationale for Impeachment in 1998

From my perspective as an evangelical Christian looking back at the impeachment of Bill Clinton, there seemed to be two main issues conservative Christians had against him. By and large, they argued on the basis of morality, saying:

  • A President who told lies was not fit for leading the nation. As evangelical magazine Christianity Today wrote in 1998, “The President’s failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair.”
  • A President who cheated on his wife showed a lack of character. Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family wrote: “Character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it.”

Moral Hypocrisy?

In 1998, Bill Clinton apologized for his indiscretions, the Democrats swept the midterms, and the Senate voted along party lines not to remove him from office. While Republicans were upset, it seemed that they had proven themselves the party of integrity, of truth-telling, of morality, and of character.

Much has been written about the fact that now, just a few elections later, most of the same evangelicals who lambasted Clinton’s sins have rallied behind Donald Trump. Trump, of course, has violated all three of his marriage vows, lies frequently, and despite all that, has said he doesn’t ask God for forgiveness. Some evangelicals justify their strong support for Trump with claims that he has truly repented and changed, but to me it feels hard to see evidence of that. Instead, evangelical support looks like moral hypocrisy, a partisan shift of values to justify voting for a candidate they wanted in office. The data seems to back this up:

In 2011, only 30 percent of white evangelicals said that an “elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life.” In 2016, that number skyrocketed to 72%.

PRRI/Brookings

Obviously, not all evangelicals strongly support Trump: “If I were to support, much less endorse, Donald Trump for president,” conservative theologian Dr. Albert Mohler says, “I would actually have to go back and apologize to former President Bill Clinton.” Moreover, while the data indicates that White evangelicals remain staunchly in favor of the president, the support drops dramatically among evangelicals who are Black, Hispanic, or other ethnicities. Regardless, the level of evangelical support for Trump is striking.

How this feels different from 1998

One could argue that the charge of hypocrisy points both ways: In 1998 Democrats opposed impeachment while Republicans supported it, and now it’s the other way around. Neither party has been wholly consistent when it comes to concern for a president’s morality; partisanship is a two-way street.

The key difference I see, however, are the differences in the rationale for the impeachment. In 1998, the main crimes Bill Clinton were accused of involved sexual misconduct and lying under oath. Republicans argued that while these merely involved Clinton’s personal wrongdoing, such private actions disqualified him from public leadership. And maybe they were right.

But right now, Democrats are not impeaching Trump for his personal moral failings, egregious as they may be; they’re making the impeachment argument much bigger. For Democrats, impeaching Donald Trump is a matter of defending the Constitution, saving the 2020 election from cheating, keeping the Executive Branch from taking too much power, and preventing Russia from having malignant influence in American affairs. And unlike Bill Clinton who asked for forgiveness in 1998, Trump still claims his behavior is “perfect,” and seems willing to keep doing it.

In 1998, a significant number of Democrats crossed party lines to investigate and impeach Bill Clinton. There is virtually no chance that Republicans will do the same to Donald Trump today; indeed they seem unwilling to even allow witnesses to publicly testify. The increase in our country’s partisanship, driven by gerrymandering, social media algorithms, and straight-up bias, has unfortunately led us to a situation where a politician who dares to show an iota of character will be relentlessly criticized if they dare to go against their party line (Check out these replies to Republican Matt Gaetz when he voted with Democrats on a nonbinding War Powers resolution). Meanwhile, under Bush, Obama, and now Trump, the Executive Branch has consolidated more and more power, while Congress bickers over proper procedure.

I’m really not sure what the ultimate result of the current impeachment trial will be. It seems likely the Senate will acquit Trump, but it’s an open question as to whether the impeachment process will hurt his odds of reelection or not. Sadly, even if the full truth comes out during the Senate trial, it’s far less likely that people will believe it than in 1998: in our postmodern era, people are deeply entrenched into their political biases and automatically reject any evidence that goes against it. The most likely result is that, if acquitted, President Trump and his associates will be emboldened to continue using the office of the presidency for personal gain, and to continue lying to protect themselves. In 1998, Bill Clinton seemed chastened and publicly apologized, concluding his presidency without further scandal. I hope for the best, but I fear the opposite will happen with our current president.